Didn't Ruth Bader Ginsburg say that an "Equal protection under the law" was the best vehicle on

[CTyankee]

Last edited Thu Sep 2, 2021, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)

establishing a woman's right to choose?

I am no expert on Ginsburg but given what has happened in Texas, do you believe she was right? And if so, what can be done now?

[BlueTsunami2018]

1. There doesn't seem to be anything that can be done.

They stole the Supreme Court and they’re making it legal to steal elections. We can’t get basic voting rights through the Congress. It really feels like game, set and match.

I didn’t think I could be more depressed than when Piss Wig was holding the country hostage. The people behind the scenes of his farcical Presidency broke the country. And I’m having a hard time seeing how we can fix it anytime soon, if ever.

[CTyankee]

2. Worth serious thinking, tho. I am depressed, too, but I am reaching for some hope.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, someone once said. Nothing lasts forever, hence the word "eternal." I am hopeful that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood will utilize the best legal minds possible to work on this.

I, for one, would like to know what they are planning to do.

[Steelrolled]

3. I don't follow the argument.

[CTyankee]

5. Ginsburg was musing that the equal protection clause in the Constitution would be a better vehicle

for the Court to guarantee a woman's right to choose. Since that case has not been made and I am not a lawyer, I wonder if she was right and there are such cases under consideration by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood of the U.S. I don't think Ginsburg would have said that publicly if, in her judgement, is isn't the better case to use (rather than the right to privacy).

[H2O Man]

4. Recommended.

Yes, you are correct, and she was correct.

The USSC should have accepted the emergency application, of course. But they are looking to combine issues involved in a number of cases, which makes sense from the court's perspective. Roe v. Wade is well established, with othe cases supporting it. The Texas law will easily be dispatched of, either directly or indirectly. There is really zero chance of it holding, though it is horrible for the people of Texas between now and then.

[CTyankee]

6. I'm curious. How do you see this happening? Under what kind of circumstances?

I know you don't have a crystal ball but there's got to be some way our current SC could uphold a woman's right to choose in SOME way.

[H2O Man]

7. The more I have

learned about it, the more upsetting it is. I know that Roberts, who was in the minority on this, wants to set the law so that it is firm for twenty years. That would be by doing a case that addresses the on-going issues on established law. Although he personally opposes abortion, he does respect the law (as he understands it). But there is evidence that he is being pretty openly challenged in his position as Vhief Justice, by a voting block of rigid right-wing religious republicans.

They will try to make it years rather than months, giving other states the opportunity to pass other insane laws -- anyone can sue a wide range of "suspects," etc -- which are way outside of what has previously seemed possible, even with the current stacked USSC. I am hoping that the Attorney General and Department of Justice are able to apply reason and the rule of law, although I am aware the rabid republicans are hoping to spark more uprisings against "federal intervention." Unlike the five in the USSC, who claim there is no injury, there are those seeking to exploit this to inflict injury.

I'm not quite ready to say the USSC is as bad as we knew it would be with the Trump additions. I'd like to see some more justices added to it soon.

[CTyankee]

8. I don't think even Ginsberg could anticipate the "bounty hunter" aspect of this law.

Here is where the extremists have gotten their way (which I suspect they always secretly wanted). There has to be some discussion about this among the justices. While they stew in their juice, there are desperate women out there without the means to leave Texas and all I can think of is "involuntary servitude."

[H2O Man]

9. I find myself

remembering an interview with an infamous christian minister in the early 1980s, shortly after Reagan took office. He explained his belief that pregnancy and the pain of child birth was the Lord's punishment for women enjoying sex. Though I'm confident that his wife never found pleasure in sexual relations with him, it is sad that any human being has such a disturbed belief about the pleasures of sex. Hence, while I agree 100% with you on "involuntary servitude," there is a severe pathological sense of punishing the slave involved.

I know people who are opposed to abortion. Most, by no coincidence, are male, and never have to deal with the reality of being pregnant. The saying, "then don't have an abortion" fits, but I think doesn't go far enough. If a person is really opposed to abortion, then they should feel obligated to join the effort to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, by making education and free birth control available. Or they should shut the fuck up. (Please excuse me for cursing, but this is such a horrible direction for society to head in.)

The wives and daughters of wealthy republican politicians will, of course, still have access to abortions. So this is, among other things, a cruel form of class warfare. And it's not that republicans want an increase in birth rates among the lower economic classes, nor have they shown even a hint of willingness to assist poor parents struggling to raise their children. Quite the opposite: it reminds me of the fear i Northern Ireland about the population increases among the Catholics -- a dynamic that directly led to an increase in violence.

[CTyankee]

10. Over my long life (I am 81) I have seen the arc of the prochoice movement in this country. My last

job before retiring was at our state office of Planned Parenthood. Previously, when I lived in the D.C. area I worked for the ACLU. In all that time, I never heard about the bounty hunter provision that the antichoice movement has now embraced. This is a new extreme. Even if some "thought it" they never said it out loud. Indeed, there was this oh so holy attitude of "loving the sinner, hating the sin." This was their "armor" against attacks that they hated women. Of course, while all along ignoring the people who were terrorizing providers with bombs that went off overnight.

When I was working at PP we were especially mindful of our file system. The attackers were looking for the names and phone numbers of patients, even filming people going in and out of the clinic. They wanted to harass the patients with phone calls, imploring them not to kill their babies.

I wonder what has happened in the anti choice movement. My guess is desperation. The bounty hunter theme is a new twist. I hope it is their final limit. If they can't get eradication of abortion this way, they will have lost big. I don't count them out, but I think their present strategies can't survive in the long run.

[H2O Man]

11. Interesting.

I think the bounty hunter thing is to distract those who, in this tense environment, would be more likely to murder abortion providers. That never reflects well on the self-proclaimed "pro life" side. So, instead of appealing to outrage, this appeals to greed.

[CTyankee]

12. I hadn't thought of that, but of course, you are right!

There will always be some people who have nothing better to do that will stoop to this tactic. However, while immediately gratifying, this will not end well. Bounty hunters are, by definition, amoral and out for their quick buck. There will be far more outrage once people wake up and see what is happening in their own communities. Play this out in your mind (if you can stand it) and it never ends well.