If the SCOTUS rules to end Roe v. Wade, I suggest that no Republican

[MineralMan]

be elected ever again to any public office. All that would take is for a substantial majority of women to refuse to vote for any Republican.

If Republicans have no respect for the rights of women, women should show all Republicans the Exit door.

[dem4decades]

1. Sadly there's many women that want abortion ended. Religious nutjobs.

[Wounded Bear]

2. Sad, but true...nt

[MineralMan]

3. They are not a majority of women, though.

[Tommymac]

29. They were instrumental in getting TFG elected.

There is a large minority of women in this country that WANT to live in a Leave it To Beaver society straight out of what they think the 1950's were like.

They WANT to be subservient to Men. The WANT to be stay at home housewives catering to their MAN. They WANT to be subservient players in the QOP Political game.

They think that White Male Dominated Christianity is the Cat's meow.

[MineralMan]

31. Perhaps. Or Perhaps Not.

I think you are overestimating the number of women who feel that way, frankly.

[Butterflylady]

43. Agree.

I had 6 pregnancies, 5 live births, 1 mis. I myself would have never considered it, but who am I to tell another woman what to do and feel the majority of women in this country feel the same as me.

[RevBrotherThomas]

66. With you on this...

I have struggled with the abortion question for decades - what is life, when does it begin, when does it deserve protection.

The bottom line, however, is this: I WILL NEVER BE PREGNANT. Period. End of story. This is a medical procedure and decision that is up to the pregnant person and the doctor. Not me, not the Congress, not the President, not the courts.

America has huge issues taking care of the poor and vulnerable BORN people - and these people, consequently, are the ones who will suffer the most should Roe be overturned. We haven't learned to care for them yet. Once we do; once women have equal pay, once maternity leave is a paid right across the board, once universal contraception is accessible through comprehensive insurance reform, once easy access to financial help for poor vulnerable families is a right not a bureaucratic nightmare, then maybe...MAYBE... we can discuss this again. With womb-bearing folk and doctors taking the lead.

Until then, the people who would restrict this medical decision need to sit down.

[mcar]

63. The Jill Stein voters

who claimed that SCOTUS was not important are to blame for this.

[Demsrule86]

42. There are more that don't. In 2016, I warned women as I canvassed about the danger to Roe

should Trump be elected...the 'but her email folks' sneered at that argument. But I was right. Most women I spoke with believed that Roe was settled. There will be hell to pay for Republicans in many areas should the court rule against Roe. I believe the courts will be destroyed should this happen.

[Texin]

44. Philosophically, they do. Until they're the woman raped and pregnant

with their rapist's rape baby. Or their thirteen year old daughter (or granddaughter) is raped by her sixteen year old step-brother, is impregnated and the girl's mandated by law to carry that rape/incest baby to term and the mother/grandmother is then forced to raise that baby.

[NoMoreRepugs]

59. I often wonder how many of the reported 25% of American women who have had an abortion

vote to ban abortion by who they vote for??

[drmeow]

73. A distrubingly high number

because THEIR abortion was different - not like those other women's abortions for no good reason.

They also want to be able to come in the back door of the clinic so that their friends protesting out front don't see them and they are back out their protesting the next day! They are selfish, self-absorbed, evil, f**ks.

[dem4decades]

76. Or they could give birth and put them up for adoption, as Amy suggests.

The number one woman that will end abortion.

The stench from the Court is there for decades.

[Texin]

77. Thirteen and fourteen year-old girls don't have adult "rights" except to

bear and birth a rapist's or a pedophile's baby. They don't legally have the right to "give up" their rapist's/pedophile's spawn, but I guess their mothers/sisters/aunts/grandmothers do until this abomination of a Trump SCOTUS deprives of them of even that choice to add more misery, and economic hardship on young girls/women who live in an economic hardscrabble existence as it is.

[SCantiGOP]

45. Sadly, you're right

I have seen anti-abortion rallies in TV and in person in my City. They ate about 3/4 female, mainly older white women.

[ecstatic]

74. Until they themselves or their daughters need one.

[madinmaryland]

75. And they are the ones who can afford to drive to a state that allows abortions.

White, middle class, and most likely devout Christians.

[walkingman]

4. I think the GOP definitely has no respect for women. Their actions speak that very clearly.

[MineralMan]

26. Yes, and that lack of respect does not end with the question of reproductive choice.

It is general.

[leftieNanner]

37. And if they are able to overturn Roe

They will be going after contraception next.

Can't keep 'em barefoot and pregnant if they can't get pregnant.

Good post, MM.

[MineralMan]

39. Yes. The same anti-choice groups are also anti-contraception.

They would gleefully take us back to the 1950s, when contraception was actually illegal in many states.

Contraceptive drugs changed everything. I remember when they became available, and I remember the time before that, as well. In California, for example, condoms were only available to people 21 years old or older, only at pharmacies, and every package said, "FOR PREVENTION OF DISEASE ONLY" That was in California, of all places.

All of that changed the year after I graduated from high school. The student health center at my college had a huge fishbowl full of free condoms in the reception area, and provided prescriptions for "the pill" to any woman requesting it. Gone were the days of avoiding sex, or resorting to alternative acts, fun as they were.

Of course, the impact went far beyond that and affected all women and affected men, too. California legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade, actually. The difference all of that made to women at the time was huge, and in many ways.

We are at risk of returning to those half a century-old times. We will not like that. We have forgotten that, mostly.

[jimfields33]

5. Can't congress pass some law?

From what I understand, roe vs wade was all lawsuits and congress never got involved. Is that true?

[MineralMan]

6. It could, yes, but there are too many Republicans sitting in Congress.

Which leads right back to my point.

[jimfields33]

8. So. The house has the majority and can pass it.

The senate simply needs the democratic senators and VP to pass it. So easy unless the democratic senators are against it and I doubt that.

[MineralMan]

10. In truth, it would take a constitutional amendment to

put an end to this, once and for all. There are not enough votes in Congress to do that. Not even close.

Yes, Congress could pass a bill that got signed by the President, but the SCOTUS can find that the bill is unconstitutional. That is at the core of the problem. When it comes to people's rights, the only guarantee of those rights must be part of the Constitution. That removes the SCOTUS as a body that can overturn a regular bill.

[jimfields33]

12. Oh crap. Didn't think about that part.

[MineralMan]

14. The Republicans think about that part.

We are in a situation where a majority of the SCOTUS is very conservative. They appear to be willing, sometimes, to vote politically in rulings, which obliviates the court's responsibility to do nothing more than interpret the Constitution. That will not be corrected until balance is restored to the court, and that may take many years to accomplish. The 2016 presidential election enabled the 45th President to appoint three right-wingers to the SCOTUS.

[jimfields33]

16. Yep. Disgusting. The damage they can do is unmentionable.

[Polybius]

56. That too could be struck down by the Supreme Court

If they do that, that's it for decades.

[The Magistrate]

7. Yes, You Understand Correctly, Sir

Congress could certainly pass a law declaring the procedure legal in all states and territories.

[FBaggins]

18. It would have to get past this same court

Overturning Roe (which they almost certainly won't do) would "merely" say that state laws would control the issue - it wouldn't ban abortion nationally.

If Congress were to pass a national law, it would still have to get past a court that had just said (essentially) that individual states had the power to regulate in this area.

[The Magistrate]

24. Not So Sure Of That, Sir

No one has, for instance, challenged federal regulation of marijuana on grounds that states can regulate such matters themselves.

I don't think overturning Roe v Wade would amount to a claim state regulation reigns supreme, it would simply remove the argument that abortion was a Constitutional right from the hands of people seeking autonomy for women.

The most likely challenge would be, I expect, some variant of the 'religious liberty' flim-flam, but it is hard to see how this could result in anything but individual exemptions --- a hospital chain or a doctor would have the right to refuse, but person A and person B agreeing to do something legal gives person C no grounds for objection, even if the thing is abhorrent to person C.

[FBaggins]

27. Marijuana is part of a complex regulatory scheme involving all drugs

And, of course, there are now many states to don't toe the federal line on marijuana.

I don't think overturning Roe v Wade would amount to a claim state regulation reigns supreme

That's what existed pre-Roe. If you remove the constitutional argument, you remove the only aspect that made it a federal issue. It's clearly a "police powers" issue that Congress would only be able to get around by crafting a commerce clause argument for federal control - which (to return to the point) would have to get around this court. I don't think that religious liberties arguments (apart from individual medical providers) would enter into it.

[The Magistrate]

72. I Expect You're Right, Sir

You usually are.

[ForgedCrank]

32. The reason this remains a contentious subject

after all of these decades is that there is no Constitutional protection or coverage for abortion rights. We can pass as many laws as we would like, but they won't stand the test in courts at the state levels when challenged (as we have seen repeatedly). This is why local politics and winning those elections is just as critical as those at the national level. I don't see a path to amending The Constitution on this matter either, it is a very tall order and we simply do not have the massive numbers required nationwide in our current condition. This could change in the future as our party grows, but right now it is but a wish.

[Demsrule86]

48. We have a 50 50 majority...so it is unlikely. Everywhere you turnl, you see the need to elect more

Democrats...liberal, progressive or moderate, it doesn't matter to get anything done we need more Democrats who will compromise when needed and vote for our legislation...it is very disheartening to me that Democrats and some who caucus with us voted against the military spending bill. There is very little chance that we will change it much and it makes us look bad. Many here have been opining that if Biden can't energize progressive and we will lose the midterms. This would be another disaster in terms of the courts. if the actions of this court don't enthuse Progressives to turn out and make sure we select the majority of judges-including a SCOTUS pick or two then I can't see that anything will.

[brooklynite]

9. Except that women are not uniformly pro-choice.....

[MineralMan]

11. My suggestion only requires a substantial majority of women

to refuse to vote for any Republican. It doesn't require all women to do so.

[brooklynite]

13. I'm not sure a "substantial majority" are pro-choice either....

...and those that are pro-choice (unlike those who tend to be pro-life) are not single issue voters.

[MineralMan]

15. You could be right. It was just a suggestion.

This is a larger issue than just reproductive choice, though. It is an issue of systemic misogyny. Perhaps that is enough to convince enough women. It certainly should be.

[Claustrum]

19. If Roe was so important for women, we wouldn't have lost in 2016.

There was a clear justice seat stealing at the time and many on the left just couldn't pull the trigger for Hillary. Many at the time (even on this board) keeps reminding those people that Roe was on the line and they didn't care one bit.

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think any particular group will refuse to vote for any party. We are all human with vast interest and concerns. I wish the current republican would not be viable as a national party but it's just a pipe dream that will never happen, as much as it should and I wish it to be.

[MineralMan]

21. So you might think, but it happened.

Despite frequent warnings about the SCOTUS, even some here on DU (most of whom are no longer here) turned and voted for a third-party candidate in 2016. In the general public, the SCOTUS risks went almost unnoticed. TFG won (maybe) by the narrowest of margins in three states.

The electorate made a terrible mistake in 2016, and we will suffer from that mistake for a long time to come. There were ample warnings, but they went unheeded by too many, I'm afraid.

Somehow, we failed to provide enough voter education to prevent four years of disastrous leadership. I hope we do not repeat that mistake in the future.

[FBaggins]

22. You're assuming that many had knowledge that they didn't really have

There were plenty of us who saw the danger... but also plenty who did not. If you remember, Trump had to select Pence and create his list of pre-approved judges just to try to convince people that he would pick anti-Roe judges.

Prior to that point, there was plenty of evidence that he was actually pro-choice and just trying to sucker the far right into voting for him. Many on both sides didn't believe it until he started picking from his list.

[FBaggins]

20. I think that it would depend on what "overturning Roe" looks like

Substantial majorities of women (at least according to most polls) don't want Roe overturned. But it's a much smaller majority of women (perhaps comparable to the proportion who already vote blue) that believe that there should be no restrictions.

The long and short of it is that I don't think we know how many women there are who currently vote red, but who would vote blue if the court were to rule that abortion remains a right, but that states can limit that right after a period of time that is shorter than end of the second trimester. Nor how many women there are on either side of that divide who do not currently vote, but would be encouraged to do so after such a decision.

I suspect that we're about to find out.

[MineralMan]

25. I'm not going to predict what the SCOTUS will do.

Still, it's not just women who should be alarmed and concerned about the SCOTUS and Roe. Men need to think carefully about the ramifications of an overturn of that decision. Far too many men ignore their responsibilities with regard to sexual activity. Many Republican men have paid for abortions over time. More than would admit that. If abortions are not available to women, men will find themselves financially responsible for unexpected offspring, even if reproduction was not their goal when they sowed their seed.

Of course, that is not actually the issue. The real issue is responsibility with regard to sexual activity. Men, traditionally, have not fully understood their responsibility.

[Demsrule86]

52. Well hopefully that will change. There is no bigger issue for any women than the right to control

their bodies. I am now a single-issue voter on this.

[Traildogbob]

41. MM, your right. Add to that number

Of a substantial part of women, a substantial part of man whores too manly for condoms, that do not want responsibility of a child and frankly, can’t handle it.

[Demsrule86]

50. No, they are not. However, from polling and personal experience most women do not want Roe

made illegal...an screwing with contraceptives will cost the GOP even more.

[inthewind21]

64. No it won't

It's a nice thought though. If women were concerned at all with Roe V Wade they would have got off their asses and made sure Roe was kept safe by not allowing Trump and the republicans to to be elected (and re-elected as far as congress goes). It's not like it was a secret republicans just sprung out of nowhere. They have been telling us all for years what their plan was. And guess what, it's here. It's mind boggling at the hand wringing and shock going on. As if this is some sort of surprise out of the blue.

[Harker]

17. Refusing to vote republican't is the first step.

Actively supporting Democratic candidates and policies is the other part of the equation.

[MineralMan]

23. Yes, of course. We can help with that, if we will unite and do so.

[ForgedCrank]

28. Women appear to be mostly

already split along this line, so unfortunately, I don't believe it will make a huge difference at all in voting patterns. Maybe a little, but nothing dramatic. Like you, I would like to think so, but I just don't see it as a game changer in elections

[MineralMan]

30. My suggestion is that it should become a game-changer.

We have become rather complacent about reproductive choice issues. The impending loss of choice, should the SCOTUS rule that way, will be a real eye-opener, I think. Complacency will no longer be possible and the impact will be huge.

For 50 years, women have not been absolutely forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If Roe is overturned, that will no longer be the case in many states. I believe that will be an enormously loud wake-up call.

[ForgedCrank]

34. Should is a completely different argument

altogether. One would hope that it should change minds. And hey, I'm wrong probably more than I am right on these subjects, I just try to properly manage my expectations. There is every possibility that there is a large number of non-voting, pro-rights women out there who would be compelled to start participating in elections that they normally ignore. That would be a very welcome change indeed.

[bluestarone]

36. I believe you are right on the money about this could be a game changer decision. (if overturned)

It will affect meds. that will no longer be available to woman. Also i wonder how, if overturned it would effect the laws in the Blue states that allow abortion rights? What a MESS the wrong decision will be!

[walkingman]

35. I think it would be a very large impact over time. I grew up in the pre-ROE era and it

affected millions of women. Women of all demographics, regardless of income, race, religion had to deal with this issue. It is easy to be judgmental until the issue affect you personally and then it is a different story.

Everyone is sexual and everyone is affected. Hopefully we do not go back to the dark ages.

It will also destroy the public trust in SCOTUS if it becomes even more obvious that it is a political entity. That would also be devastating to our Democracy.

[Demsrule86]

53. I absolutely disagree...most women think Roe is settled law...and it will be a big shock

if SCOTUS ends it...I would not be surprised if it did not cost the GOP the midterms.

[electric_blue68]

60. You could be right..

The example from physics "an object in motion tends to stay in motion".

It's been a long time, and so many women have reached puberty, or have been born post Roe v Wade that it feels solid - except in the reddest States that started to close down clinics, and other moves, as soon as they could.

It unfortunately might be a terrible shock to a sizable minority?

[AngryOldDem]

33. They need to be hounded constantly about social issues.

If they are going to force women to have babies, then give women and families the means to take care of them. Don’t constantly cut social programs.

This dissonance has to end. You can’t dictate the one without providing adequately for the other. I’ve made this argument to pro-lifers before and have been largely met with crickets.

[barbtries]

38. fuck the patriarchy.

too many women buy into it. Personally, i was ready to let that party go the way of the Whigs and Tories after gw. they do not go away.

[KS Toronado]

40. If the SCOTUS rules to end Roe v. Wade

The Media will be in a ratings fight for viewership, and I question if they'll promote the idea that this is great

for America, Oh RW media will, but MSM will point out how it's hurting a 13 year old rape victim in tin-buck-2,

a 25 year old married woman in Texas who's Doctor has stated her fetus is killing her and needs to come out

but Gov Greg Abbott refuses the Doctors orders. Enough of these sad stories because QublicOns caused them

and the voters will be against them in the midterms. IMO

[Demsrule86]

55. I agree...don't know where folks get the idea that so many women are anti-choice...not true.

[lark]

46. I have been onboard with that since I first started voting in 1970.

I vote in every election and I have never once voted for a repug. There was an excellent R rep in the Ca Assembly at one time and I was going to vote for him as he was the more anti-war of the 2 candidates, but he dropped out because Rs wouldn't support him so I didn't have to vote for him. Never even been tempted since then.

[MineralMan]

47. Yes! We need more recruits to that way of thinking.

[wryter2000]

49. Women won't

For lots of women, that would be the end. Others might decide to vote when they haven't before. But there are plenty of anti-choice women. I'm sorry, I don't think that will happen.

[BradAllison]

51. LOL

There are plenty of women fine with it. Including one total nutjob on the court.

[Demsrule86]

54. There are plenty of women who are not fine with it. One of the reason Georgia is on the cusp of

turning blue is choice. Georgia has enacted draconian laws. And if women stop voting for the GOP in large numbers...they are toast regardless of any gerrymander.

[BradAllison]

68. Good luck with that

Then again, I forget you're the one who says we have to "limit expectations" to win elections. Including Senators who won't fight to save our actual right to vote.

[Polybius]

57. The vast majority of people think ending Roe will make abortions illegal in all 50 states

Once they find out this isn't true, they will keep voting against their interests.

[Jakes Progress]

58. I'd like to think that but

gender doesn't overcome stupidity.

[Meadowoak]

61. How many Republicans are single (Rowe v. Wade) voters? If

Rowe is overturned, what reason do they have to ever vote again?

[mcar]

62. Will it motivate Young women and men

to finally vote with some regularity? I hope so. But I fear not. The far left "this is Democrats fault!!11" has already begun on social media.

[Torchlight]

65. If that's the eventual ruling, I think it will result in a blue wave of voters for the mid-terms

that will make the 2018 mid-terms seems like a gentle ripple on a pond, and reinvigorate many currently-apathetic voters.

[taxi]

67. Women as in all women, or, voting women?

The voting women (at the ballet box this time) have the bigger say in making a law, and their efforts are measurable.

The Republicans have no respect for the rights of all women, not just the voting women.
Maybe the overall messaging is fine, but it's not the specific messaging that the women who will be refusing to waste their votes want to hear.

[Torchlight]

69. Kicking this...

as an informal experiment in contrasts.

[BComplex]

70. I'm in favor of all democrats registering as republicans in the primaries and to get some sane

democrats to run under the republican banner. Then we vote them in to the republican party, and make the world start turning back in the proper direction. That way, if the majority vote for the democratic party, we win. If they vote for the republican party, we win.

[PufPuf23]

71. Agree that if the USSC overturns R vs W then no woman should ever vote GOP again and

good men should support women and no longer vote GOP.

There is a problem. Much of the support for banning R vs W comes from conservative evangelical Christian women.

The elephant in the room is the level of toxic Christianity that has injected itself for decades in the nation's political process.