Someone else noticed, too.

Thomas Zimmer:

Ending Roe v Wade is just the beginning

Key paragraph:

It is very hard to overstate how significant this moment is. The US is about to join the very short list of countries that have restricted existing abortion rights since the 1990s – the overall trend internationally certainly has been towards a liberalization of abortion laws. And it’s also a basically unique development in US history: while the supreme court has often upheld and codified a discriminatory status quo, it has never actively and officially abolished what had previously been recognized as a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Don't expect too much cover from a Supreme Court beholden to Opus Dei and dark money. Abolishing rights is these guys' business.

Mitch McConnell, for his part, seems to think that a national abortion ban is on the table if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

The Democrats will save us, of course, except that the economy will sink them as an issue, and the Supreme Court doesn't look as if it will save them from the bad outcome typical of politicians (let's start with Herbert Hoover) who try to run on a bad economy.

Regression is on the agenda.

Share
up
14 users have voted.

Comments

QMS's picture

to take no blame for destroying our rights
whoever sends their wishes to the political
class do it with a fervor ensconced in so many
parlances's it is difficult who exactly stands
to gain in this myopic misunderstanding of
rights and freedoms, except we the people lose

up
7 users have voted.
travelerxxx's picture

Zimmer's article in The Guardian is spot on, as far as it goes. Everyone should read it - twice.

While Zimmer feels the regressives and/or fascists want to end up in the 1950's, I don't see them putting any such limit on themselves. They will go as far as they can go before they are stopped. If they can erase all civil rights legislation, they will. If they can curtail voting rights to a point prior to universal suffrage, they won't hesitate. They are prepared to nullify any Supreme Court decision and repeal or modify any Constitutional Amendment. "Any" means any.

How am I so certain? They don't necessarily broadcast these views. However, if you read the online conversations between them and listen to their conversations, you will be forced to admit that they see no limits. I try to be the mouse in the corner, so to speak. I lurk on their websites, stand close-by to their verbal conversations, let them send their vitriolic and hate-filled chain emails to me, etc. I listen (to the point of nausea) to their radio broadcasts. I'm sure of what I'm seeing and hearing.

None of this started yesterday, or even with Trump. Perhaps it's built-in. Nonetheless, one can notice certain way-points getting crossed. As an example, I well remember James Watt, Interior Secretary under Reagan saying (while serving for Reagan), "There are liberals and there are Americans." Watt crossed a bridge with that statement. He should have been fired the next day, but instead he was lauded. How minor that statement seems today, but at the time it was groundbreaking to say such a thing publicly.

They are prepared to resort to violence in many cases. Much of their writing and many of their radio broadcasts have now resorted to laying out excuses for that violence. This has been somewhat subdued for decades, but now is right up front. Anyone with an AM radio can hear it every day. Yes, it's propaganda, but the most scientific and effective propaganda possible.

What will stop this? I doubt mass protest will do it at this point, especially if those protests are sanctioned by the Democrats. Rather than the shock that the anti-Vietnam war protests caused, similar ones today would simply provide the right with a chance for public ridicule and for false-flag events. Any protests worth their name would quickly be lambasted by main-stream media, including most of (so-called) left-wing media. Serious protest would also be met by the heavy use of force to curtail it.

Guns won't save us. The right has them all, including those of the police and the military. The Right has been itching to use their guns since the Minutemen of the early 1960's. Police in the US are shot-through with the most radical of right wingers. While perhaps not as well entrenched, the military situation is similar. Some US military branches/groups are worse than others. Personally, I trust none of them.

I now feel that the only thing capable of stopping the ultra right-wing fascists is their own success. That is, at some point enough of the fascist right will realize that they've thrown the baby out with the bath water to put an end to it. Short of a miracle, I'm not seeing enough of a left-wing presence in this country to stop anything the fascists choose to do.

I hope I'm wrong about all of this, but that's what I'm seeing.

I'd comment on the Seattle Times article, but they won't let me in to see it. Perhaps there's another source somewhere?

up
10 users have voted.

@travelerxxx Bless your heart for braving the airwaves and listening to that rwnj crap.
On the other hand, we need to see and understand what our future holds, and be prepared, even if it is impossible to stop it. Protests are so yesterday, unless they are for pure show, meant to raise money, not any other action.
Hope you and yours are good, and that you will always pop in with your insights.
Every truth is of great value.
Bring on the truth!

up
9 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

The Democrats will save us, of course, except that the economy will sink them as an issue, and the Supreme Court doesn't look as if it will save them from the bad outcome typical of politicians (let's start with Herbert Hoover) who try to run on a bad economy.

Regression is on the agenda.

.

The agenda is a religious one. It has always been about religion, in the isolated US colony.

The American Taliban will be in control for the foreseeable future. An atheist could never win an election to high office in the United States.

An excerpt from an opinion column at LiveMint that I thought laid out neatly the ideology that has captured the US:

The movement against Roe vs Wade began soon after the judgement itself. Conservative churches were appalled that abortion was legal, and they began their campaign in earnest by trying to elect politicians who claimed to take ‘pro-life’ positions, and by vetting the ideological records of potential nominees to courts and supporting only those who passed the abortion litmus test.

In some states, right-leaning legislatures shortened the term of pregnancy by when a woman could choose to abort, made exceptions even harder, and placed improbable barriers that made it expensive for any woman who sought to terminate her pregnancy. The result was that in vast parts of the US, for miles on end, there was no clinic that could legally perform an abortion.

By placing insurmountable hurdles, the American right was stripping women of their right, their agency, and their dignity, while elevating the life of an unborn child and turning the woman into a body meant for child birth, nothing more.

The effort was crass, but when the driving force is faith, little room is left for doubt.

Today, a majority of Americans agree that women should have the right to decide, and fewer Americans than at any time insist that abortion is always wrong.

Activists who support the right to abortion relied on two foundations. One was the verdict of 1973, which they thought had settled the issue once and for all; and that was based on the second plank, the idea of ‘stare decesis’, or legal precedent, which must not be overturned.

If Roe vs Wade is reversed, the verdict would not be conservative, but radical, as it would overturn precedent. Some pro-choice advocates have been wary of relying solely on a Supreme Court majority to defend a hard-earned right. All it would take, they had argued, was a right-leaning majority in the apex court, and it could spell the end of Roe, and that is exactly what may happen if the court’s leaked opinion holds.

Such a verdict will not ban abortions in the US. It will send the matter to the states. Under America’s federal system, states can have their own laws on many matters. Thus, the fight to defend women’s right to choose what they can do with their bodies will now shift to American states.

Reports suggest that Chief Justice John Roberts is desperately seeking a compromise that may retain Roe in some form. Historically, the Supreme Court has made awful judgements, such as in the Dred Scott case, which determined that descendants of slaves were not citizens in the full meaning of the term and could not be emancipated, a decision that so angered abolitionists that it paved the way for the American Civil War.

Culture warriors don’t like compromise, but don’t mind dividing people, and that’s where we are.

up
10 users have voted.

____________________
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
— Voltaire

snoopydawg's picture

Reply to Pluto…

and they had no plans to overturn it. I don’t remember if their history hinted at what they would actually do if a case came before them, but for Kavanaugh and Barrett democrats had a way to keep them off the court, but didn’t even try to take it. And it should be obvious to everyone that abortion isn’t something that they are interested in defending. They had their best chances to do so during Clinton’s and Obama’s tenures, but it wasn’t important to them as Obama admitted. Hillary picked anti choice Kaine as her VP and said that she could meet the republicans on it if they agreed to keep it legal for rape and incest. Biden said that Roe didn’t go far enough.

But what makes this hypocritical;

while elevating the life of an unborn child and turning the woman into a body meant for child birth, nothing more.

Is their complete lack of interest after the baby is born. Making sure that babies are well fed and housed has never been republican's priority. But it’s not for democrats either. Clinton gutted welfare and Obama cut $5 billion from food stamps and it was already under funded when he did.

Now the supremes are going to cancel Roe even though formula is in short supply and food costs and poverty is rising. That isn’t pro life. And after they do that they will cancel a lot more of our rights which I think is the goal behind doing Roe. Time will tell if I’m right.

up
5 users have voted.

It is not until the tide goes out that you discover who has been swimming naked.

@snoopydawg And, the full burden of the State to prove guilt.
My firm position: You can't talk your way out of prison, but in only a few seconds, you can talk yourself into Death Row.

up
12 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@on the cusp

Hopefully people will still know that they have the right to remain silent when talking to cops. Best video out there is the one that hammers home that you never talk to the cops. One small slip and your buttocks could be locked up for years…decades. Even on traffic stops.

Still thought I’d be long dead before sh*t hit the fan. No such luck.

up
10 users have voted.

It is not until the tide goes out that you discover who has been swimming naked.

usefewersyllables's picture

@on the cusp

are probably creaming their jeans at the prospect, since it will mean that Their Tribe Won. Woohoo!

They lack the imagination to understand that they will eventually end up up against the wall or bent over the hood of a car, right along with the rest of us...

This is "imagined privilege" writ large. Hey, lawnorder-types: you ain't in the club, either. Hope that helps...

up
6 users have voted.

Twice bitten, permanently shy.

If you think this is bad, check out Snoopy's comment in her essay today regarding the WHO becoming the organization to override national sovereignty in times of heath crises like pandemics, as in now, with monkeypox.
Vax passort will be mandatory.
Great Reset, here we come!

up
7 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@on the cusp Rather, a genuine state of emergency was hijacked to promote vaccines for the greater profits of Big Pharma. I don't really have any objections to the vaccines themselves -- what's objectionable has been the selective reporting of data about COVID-19 so as to promote vaccines. Most egregiously, the "official" agencies have not been collecting data on natural immunity, which as it stands has been protecting us against the Omicron variants. Why not? Well, how are you going to sell a vaccine when there's so much natural immunity swimming about?

So that's what that topic was about.

up
6 users have voted.

"The future is inside us/ It's not somewhere else." -- Radiohead

@Cassiodorus @Cassiodorus That same Supreme Court may face the issue of WHO taking over our (along with 193 other countries) right to handle a pandemic their way.
You and I can disagree on COVID-19 being a genuine emergency in some other thread. We do agree on the horrible prospect of women being reduced to mindless, opinionless, breeding chattel.
Horrifying, if this rolls over us.

up
7 users have voted.
janis b's picture

@Cassiodorus

I’m not quite as confident as you regarding the original state of emergency as being a genuine one which validated the direction taken, I do strongly support …" what's objectionable has been the selective reporting of data about COVID-19 so as to promote vaccines. Most egregiously, the "official" agencies have not been collecting data on natural immunity, which as it stands has been protecting us against the Omicron variants. Why not? Well, how are you going to sell a vaccine when there's so much natural immunity swimming about?”

The lack of interest, of influential powers, in exploring and recording transparently the full picture is self-defeating, and unfortunate for future progress. Are we being asked to negate a primary aspect of what is responsible for our existence and survival?

up
6 users have voted.

@janis b So much controversy about true and, well, opportunistic pandemics, has made many of us skeptical.
In panic mode, we give up a right, then another, and so on.
Overturning this case, when codification could have been accomplished numerous times in the past 49 years, is the start of failures, like dominoes falling down the line. It helps to distract with pandemics, and helps the next pandemic allows WHO to rule, and all the while, every right in Supreme Court rulings get wiped away.
Stay well in NZ, I will put up a "Come and Take it!" Alamo sort of stance, here in Texas.

up
5 users have voted.
janis b's picture

@on the cusp

"In panic mode, we give up a right, then another, and so on.”

We need an anti-panic remedy, and then things might improve.

I’m looking forward to what a "Come and Take it!" Alamo sort of stance” is.

All is well here in the land of the long white cloud; ).

up
5 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@janis b

from the rebellion of 1835-36. The town of Gonzales had a small cannon, lent them for protection against raiding Comanches, and when the settlers got restless, the Mexican army wanted it back. The story goes that the citizens of Gonzales, or the local militia (somewhat more likely), ran up a homemade flag with a (crude) picture of the cannon and the words "Come and take it". After a short skirmish, the Mexican detachment withdrew. (This is the "Cliff's notes" version; there's a lot more to it including some heavy-duty political stuff.)

Anyway, that was the start of the war that ended up with an independent Republic of Texas, which after about ten years petitioned for and received admission to the United States of America.

up
2 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

janis b's picture

@TheOtherMaven

for your contributions to my historical understanding of the country I grew up in.

up
1 user has voted.
usefewersyllables's picture

no longer fear The People. Why would they? Such types know that if they just carry water for The Owners, those invisible hands will sweep in with megabucks and keep them in office, regardless of which facet of the uniparty they nominally claim to represent.

The system is hopelessly broken, as we all know. Even the most starry-eyed among us are finally starting to arrive where George Carlin though we should be all along... Once again, I'm glad that I'm old. I agree with Snoop: if I'm not dead before the S really HTF hereabouts, my solution will be to simply and voluntarily walk into the middle of the nearest crossfire right up front. Eschaton, here we come!

up
7 users have voted.

Twice bitten, permanently shy.

being more widely recognized. Thanks for posting this.

up
11 users have voted.

Betty Clermont

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/obama-promised-to-s...

Obama also promised to end W's Office of Faith Based Initiatives which was a huge violation of separation of church and state. Instead he expanded the office and created a committee of religious group reps to "advise" him.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-breaks-campaign-promise-to-sign-a...

Note in this article that the head of PP doesn't even call him out on it.

Planned Parenthood came out for Hillary Clinton before her primary race with Sanders was even over. This despite the fact that Sanders was far more open to womens' choice throughout the pregnancy than Hillary, who wanted restrictions. So PP didn't exactly help things either.

up
10 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Cassiodorus's picture

@Fishtroller 02 Life is easier for them if the other party is in power and they aren't made to feel as if they have to do anything for anyone with a net worth under seven figures. Remember that when Obama was in power the Democrats ceded 900+ seats in state legislatures to the Republicans on top of having given up all branches of the Federal government and 12 governor's offices.

Now, I understand that enlisting the cops in a war against women who have abortions is really only a side-venture of the Republican Party, whose primary "virtue" in the eyes of the elites is that their rank-and-file does not give a damn if they give the store away to the super-rich. And the Republicans really do blow things now and then, and thus the Democrats are obliged to keep government seats warm in those instances. But the Republicans are the favored party for the "virtue" I mentioned, and everyone with money likes it that way nonetheless. So we will get cops hunting down women who have abortions.

up
6 users have voted.

"The future is inside us/ It's not somewhere else." -- Radiohead

While not following the fights over abortion, it did seem that since the dems were shellacked in 2010, that gop controlled states put more and more restrictions on abortion. If pundit predictions are right, the situation will get worse this election cycle.

up
7 users have voted.
usefewersyllables's picture

@MrWebster

can probably be traced most immediately to the end of the Fairness Doctrine, frankly. Even though the Equal Access law established by the Communications Act of 1934 is still in effect, it has been repeatedly hollowed out and gutted by various Congressional actions to the point that it is regarded as a mere annoyance now. Once the unfortunately-informal Doctrine was scrapped, all hells's been out for noon.

At this point, there's no longer any reason for the media to even pretend to achieve balance in their coverage of this issue (or any issue, for that matter). And since money has been defined as speech, whoever has the deepest pockets will win every debate by default- period, end of statement, full stop. We all know that that ain't us, so Roe's days are numbered as surely as those of the Freedom of Unsubsidized/Unapproved Speech. Free speech is damned expensive- at least if it ever to be heard by anybody.

We have to earn our increasingly worthless money, whereas The Owners can just have their minions stand at the output hopper of the printing press and grab as much as they want. How you gonna compete with that? Sad, innit...

up
7 users have voted.

Twice bitten, permanently shy.

of a pending Court ruling on concealed carry weapons, Scotus is likely to wait and see how their apparent Roe reversal plays out politically, as their majority of RW justices tend to be very political. If Rs fail to make gains to take over Congress, if a Roe reversal backlash occurs, they are likely to hold off on further draconian rulings related to right to privacy etc.

However, if Rs prevail in Nov, look out for more literal, originalist interpretations of the Constitution that roll back personal rights currently protected. At which point Roe or maybe one more ruling after that could well set up conditions for a boiling over point socially in the country. There is just so much the system will tolerate before people begin to see rather limited options.

up
4 users have voted.