Overturning Roe v Wade is only the beginning-assholes want to overturn Obergefell

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Obergefell (same sex marriage), Lawrence (consensual sex), Loving (interracial marriage) as well as Roe are all based on case called Griswold v Connecticut where birth control was allowed. The assholes who are going after Roe also want to criminalize same sex marriage and other rights derived from Griswold.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[SheltieLover]

1. K&R!

[madaboutharry]

2. I think overturning these cases will break our Democracy.

Last edited Mon Sep 20, 2021, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)

It will lead to massive civil unrest. I don’t think the American people can be pushed that far. This amounts to tyranny by the minority.

[Buckeyeblue]

10. I agree. Especially since a majority of Americans supports these rights.

[Irish_Dem]

16. I think massive civil unrest is the goal.

The GOP leadership could care less about these issues.

They just want as much chaos and division as possible.
Putin and the GOP have the same goals.

[thenelm1]

23. As much as I hate that victims of these absurdities will suffer, at least in the short term,...

seeing the Repubs literally cut their own throats trying to make the majority of us eat their shite - bring it on. Let's face it, this may be the only way to finally be rid of this rightwing pox on the nation once and for all. Their crap views are largely in the minority everywhere. It might take having them trying to force us down their antediluvian path to finally wake up that part of the public that say they are against what they're selling, but silently sit on the sidelines.

[mountain grammy]

24. I agree

[unblock]

3. Republicans: freedom to infect but no freedom to love.

[Funtatlaguy]

4. Watch The Handmaids Tale. They want Gilead.

[Celerity]

9. Yep, minus the black folk in positions of power.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

37. Bad metaphor. Marginalized people have been oppressed by unfair reproductive policies for decades.

Saying that it’s “Handmaid’s Tale” now ignores their reality.

[Lancero]

39. Also explains the lack of care towards climate issues...

Given that a environmental collapse was one of the key background events to its formation.

[vercetti2021]

5. Roe V Wade is fuel to our fire

You start taking away other rights? You're gonna see a fucking complete slaughter in someway.

[Retrograde]

6. I fully expect Texas to start chipping away at birth control

if their woman-hating abortion law stands. Let's see - IUDs prevent implantation therefore they're a form of abortion (the RCC argues this), spermicides are of course right out, I don't know how they'll argue against birth control drugs but I'm sure they'll think of something. Makes me glad to be post-menopausal.

Wonkette had a piece a few days ago on the guy who wrote the Texas law: his goal is to stop women from having sex, probably because they won't have sex with him. Seems like an incel trying to take out his frustrations

[CousinIT]

12. Make no mistake. Outlawing abortion will not be the end. They WILL seek to outlaw birth control

after that. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

29. They already claim that the pill causes abortion by preventing implantation.

It's a longstanding claim of theirs, even though it's completely false.

[Thomas Hurt]

7. Yes, you don't get to a christofascist theocracy without getting rid of that caselaw...

and bringing compulsory christian prayer back in schools. No more teaching evolution.

The destruction of public schools.

Wiping any vestige of unions out.

[AllaN01Bear]

20. you beat me to it in your title line word 7. u r correct on having to get rid of case law.

[brer cat]

8. I don't think we could sustain that.

This country will blow apart if they start taking down all our rights. They are big enough arrogant assholes to try, but I think (hope) the blowback would be enormous.

[Hekate]

11. Of course they do. Lets just roll it all back to 1821 while we're at it.

May I be forgiven for how much I hate them by now.

[AllaN01Bear]

19. pre articles of confederation even.

[brooklynite]

13. REALITY CHECK - The Court will do nothing about Obergfell

First, this is an Amicus Brief; essentially a personal opinion.

Second, it has nothing to do with case at hand.

Third, there is no case regarding marriage equality that would allow it to be brought up.

Fourth, Obergfell was only decided six years ago; Roberts isn't going to allow Court rulings to be disrupted that way.

Fifth, there are more than 250,000 same sex people who have invoked the right to marry. To change the law now would cause huge legal and economic consequences which would create immense political headaches, even for Republicans. (remember California?)

[mountain grammy]

25. While I agree with all your points,

the reality is we're staring into the face of religious fanaticism. All bets are off.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. It can't happen here!

I think I have heard that somewhere before.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

28. Roe is based on Griswold and if the court overturns Griswold say goodbye to Obergfell

We are dealing with a number of strict constructionist who have always hated Griswold or any sort of implied rights. These assholes have the opportunity to get rid of a number of decisions that they disagree with

[lonely bird]

36. And I operate on the theory of paranoia when it comes to the right

Just because I am paranoid that doesn’t mean that they’re not out to get me. If the RW can get Obergfell reversed they most certainly will try. They will try to reverse ANYTHING progressive.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

42. This is a serious run at Griswold and the right to privacy

Link to tweet

[slightlv]

14. Everyone here is correct, but no one has gone far enough!

Read up on Dominionism theology. This is what has been working in the background all these decades. These are the people who believe that sinning in the name of achieving something for Christ is actually righteous. This includes lying, deceit, murder, etc. It includes things like the way the SB1 was achieved.

They have set out to achieve 7 accomplishments. Once these 7 are achieved, they will control all aspects of American life. And you WILL abide by them, for they will be the Law. By then, we will a verified Christian Theocracy. While we've been horrified (and rightfully so) of living under a dictatorship, we've not even been aware enough of the theocracy that's right around the corner.

I've known some of these people throughout my life, starting my life in the Evangelical lifestyle. Luckily, my grandmother turned my family away from these crazy people, tho not against religion entirely. I come from a long, long line of preachers. My grandmother, herself, was a travelling preacher. She turned away from the Evangelicals because they turned away from her - how DARE she preach the word of God! When, at 18, I saw a crossroads for me. I wanted to preach. The other road led to the Air Force. When I was laughed out of the Seminary info session, I joined the Air Force, and I through myself into learning everything I could about Eastern Religions and became "Seeker," eventually becoming Wiccan and then just full-fledged Craft. I've been Craft now since late 1970's, and I see myself going nowhere else where my spirituality goes. I guess they'll burn me at the stake, cause I'll never go back to worshipping the way they want me to worship. The most I can go is my devotion to Hecate; which could become a devotional to Mary. She's been many things to many women through the ages!

But be aware. Dominionist Theocracy is much worse than an authoritarian dictatorship, and some of us have been screaming it about it for years!

[PatrickforB]

22. You know, a while ago, I read a book called the Family, about people who

believed they were the anointed simply because they had wealth and power.

I wonder if this references the dominion theologists. I'll have to read up. Thanks for the post.

[AZ8theist]

15. Welcome to the United States of Gilead.

Don't think for A SECOND IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE.

[lonely bird]

17. I give this country 30 years, max.

Unless the Republican Party and reactionaryism is destroyed. Today’s conservative is not conservative. These are radicalized religionists. These are radicalized libertarian utopianists. The odd combination wants to make so-called God’s Law the law of the state while strangling the social net.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. I give it closer to five years. Maybe ten to consolidate everything.

The real aim is simply corporatist plutocracy, where the ultra wealthy can keep making money and doing whatever they want, free from any constraints whatsoever.

The Christofascist theocracy is the payoff they give to the most reactionary of the little people in return for giving them what they want.

Don't ever think that the ultra wealthy will live under the kind of restrictions that the rest of us will be forced to.

[lonely bird]

35. True

Re: the wealthy “The rich are not like us”.

The Christofacists are either wealthy or they are simply temporarily embarrassed millionaires. This especially applies to the whites. Poor people of color under the iron Protestant Work Ethic are morally corrupted. Their failure must be their own fault.

[PatrickforB]

21. Tone deaf religious fanatics, as bad if not worse than the Sharia people they so rail

against.

Every time they do something like this, though, it galvanizes people to get involved, go activist, and drives votes against the Republicans.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Of course. This should not come as a surprise to anyone!

Frankly, I think had they gone that route, they might have actually had better luck. While things are still dicey, I think RVW will survive, but it will be a nail-biter. But, if it falls, it is only a matter of time before other cases, like these fall.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

31. Amicus brief supporting Texas abortion ban argues Roe is judge-made law

Link to tweet

[roamer65]

32. Listening to Canadian PM Trudeau speak tonite made me realize yet again...

That states like NY, CA, the New England ones and others of the North have more in common with Ontario and other Canadian provinces than we do states like Alabama and Texass.

[LeftInTX]

33. It won't happen

This means that all current same-sex marriages would be "illegal". Also there can't be a precedent where a marriage is recognized in one state and not in another.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

34. This right to privacy is not just about reproductive rights.

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

38. Texas Abortion Ban Architect Now Looking To Recriminalize Gay Sex And Overturn Gay Marriage

This is the asshole who drafted the Texas abortion law. This asshole wants to strike down the implied right of privacy by getting Roe overruled which would/could lead to striking down the right to same sex marriage and other rights

Link to tweet

https://www.comicsands.com/jonathan-mitchell-overturn-gay-marriage-2655065691.html

Though Mitchell's brief, also signed by his co-counsel Adam Mortara, dedicates much of its time to the Texas abortion law's defense, it also questions "lawless" pieces of legislation, namely the Lawrence v. Texas ruling, which decriminalized gay sex nationwide, and the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage.

Though the brief does not say reversing Roe v. Wade would threaten the same-sex marriage ruling, it does say that

""the news is not as good for those who hope to preserve the court-invented rights to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage …
"These 'rights,' like the right to abortion from Roe, are judicial concoctions, and there is no other source of law that can be invoked to salvage their existence."

It goes on to add that while the Supreme Court should not necessarily overturn Lawrence and Obergefell, it should consider these two rulings as "lawless" as Roe v. Wade and, by extension, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

"This is not to say that the Court should announce the overruling of Lawrence and Obergefell if it decides to overrule Roe and Casey in this case."
"But neither should the Court hesitate to write an opinion that leaves those decisions hanging by a thread. Lawrence and Obergefell, while far less hazardous to human life, are as lawless as Roe."

The brief drew the attention of Melissa Murray, who teaches at New York University's School of Law.

Link to tweet

[PlanetBev]

40. That's exactly the face I would expect to be behind this

Looks like he belongs on an old tintype photograph from the 19th century. These people never change.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

41. I do not know which of these assholes is worst

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

43. Legal expert: The gays are next

Link to tweet

Indeed, the argument from the guy who designed the recent Texas law that has all but banned abortions in that state is a broadside against judges making any decision not specifically in black ink of the Constitution.

The author of the brief is Jonathan Mitchell, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, the former Texas Solicitor General and conservative attorney, who argues in the abortion case brief that not only is Roe v. Wade unconstitutional, but that the cases underscoring LGBTQ rights are "as lawless as Roe" and should be eliminated.

So, the people who brought you anti-abortion laws now want to re-open gay rights – another settled legal precedent. Or so we have thought.

As MSNBC's Jessica Levinson argues in a column last week, "After scoring an initial victory in their mission to eviscerate women's constitutionally protected right to obtain access to an abortion, some in the conservative movement have already explicitly moved on to attacking LGBTQ rights, which suggests they're gunning for all your constitutionally protected rights — at least those not dealing with guns."


Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, also the director of its Public Service Institute at Loyola Law School, co-director of Loyola's Journalist Law School and former president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission, explains that Mitchell, who now runs his own one-man law firm, is dead set against both Roe and the cases governing same-sex rights because "they're based on judges, well, judging."