Today The Guardian broke the news that former president Donald Trump tested positive for COVID on September 26, 2020, days earlier than the White House admitted. A forthcoming book from former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has the story. Despite the positive test, Trump went forward with his public schedule, unmasked. He exposed the guests at a Rose Garden ceremony for Amy Coney Barrett, his nominee for the Supreme Court; it became a superspreader event that infected Chris Christie, Kellyanne Conway, and Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Mike Lee (R-UT). That night, Trump held a rally in Middletown, Pennsylvania.
1) Does ANYONE else have any doubt that that Orange Asscactus went to that debate with the unstated but specific goal of giving President Biden Covid? Would you put that past him?
2) I also have zero doubt after hearing yesterday's argument before the Supreme Court on Mississippi's abortion law that Roe v. Wade is dead letter law. I am less certain as to whether the Court will overrule Roe completely or satisfy themselves with gutting it to the point where it no longer has any meaning. Regardless, I think that the Professor's concerns are entirely valid. Once the Court "does what it does", we will see a complete erosion of other federally protected rights (gay marriage will be high on that list, I am sure) and as Justice Sotomayor pointed out, the Court will (deservedly) lose legitimacy in the eyes of millions of Americans. As well, we are now seeing just how the Republican plan to stack the courts (and especially the Supreme Court) with right wing Justices has borne fruit. The Democrats closed their eyes for years to what was going on and now we as a country will pay a huge price for that lack of foresight.
3) One final thing, related to point number two above: I am beside myself with fury at those who sat out the 2016 election because "there is no difference between Trump and Clinton". Still think that, you idiots? I'm especially furious with the "Bernie Bros", who sat on their hands and sulked because their candidate didn't get the nomination. Had they not done so, there wouldn't be three Justices sitting on the Supreme Court who will now hand deliver the anti-choice movement the gift they have been awaiting since 1973. As far as I'm concerned, this is as much on them as it is on the Republicans.
Thank you Ian. You saved me a lot of typing. I share your fury. And I am particularly angry about your number 3. If you hear the sound of a freight train, see it's headlights as it bears down on you...do you get off the tracks or continue an argument over what to have for dinner?
As a Democratic Socialist (Social Democrat?) I am stunned by the stupidity and disunity of the left. The Federalist Society has been plotting this forever. Those three justices are in the process of creating our version of Gilead from the Handmaids Tale.
Our only hope now is to expand the size of the court. This trio of terrorists is young enough to outlive our kids.
Been watching the evil ooze for at least half of my long life. Bill Moyers warned us over and over. Fox and republicans before Rupert charged ahead with evil. Maybe enough people will now see the danger we face. Again I refer to Milton Mayer's "They Thought They Were Free: Germany 1935-1945" It is us...
The saddest part is that Rupert's #1 goal was never to change the political landscape. It was to make money, pure and simple. Dividing our country and creating a crazed cult of fanatics ready to tear down the Constitution out of the "poorly educated" was just the easiest means to that end.
If the US had a Page Six culture like the UK, none of this might have happened.
He did plenty of damage in the UK, Canada as well. One article I read, he said that the reason he got into politics was that whoever was in 10 Downing St would always answer the phone when he called. Don’t kid yourself, power is another goal, not just greed. In Jan 1981, NYT had an article about Republicans hosting a dinner for Rupert to honor his efforts to get Ronnie elected. Jack Kemp was quoted as saying that Rupert “used the editorial page, the front page, and every other page necessary to get Ronald Reagan elected President…” boy, did it pay off the the evil Machiavellian
Unfortunately, #2 rings true for me. The Roe verdict will open the doors to many more federally protected being shot down. And, that probably means that I will have to go back into the closet. Depressing, at the very least. Infuriating at best.
I doubt he knows he’s black, been playing white for so long. Ginni may dump him unless he can still deliver significant power with that lifetime appointment
Yes, indeed, that happened to me, too, Rob -- and I couldn't contact Heather's site to find out if someone on her staff miscoded something. Seems to be fixed.
If you really want to lose your mind, then please consider that Leonard Leo, Federalist Society honcho and Opus Dei acolyte, having packed the courts to dismantle civil rights (yes, voter participation and reproductive rights are just the tip of the iceberg) and opened the fire hose of dark money, is now hard at work on dark money funded schemes to severely limit jury trials. Federal judges already overstep their role by overruling juries (something which even Justice Scalia was concerned about - but that was then.)
The 6th and 7th amendments speak to the Founders support for jury trials - they found that secret trials, particularly of colonists protesting crown abuses, were a strong curb on liberty.
As part of their erosion of government oversight and democratic participation, big money interests want to keep their 'fates' in the hands of 'their' judges.
I thought I couldn’t get any more disillusioned. However, I am not surprised. I have been watching the ooze for half of my life. They play hardball with cheating, propaganda, and no morals or integrity. We still blather about Fox’s latest evil but do nothing.
Please take heart. By uniting, we (Thank You James Clyburn) elected the Biden Harris ticket and a Democratic majority. They are hard at work and making progress. We have to roll up our sleeves for 2022.
I will, but I know how many arms the octopus has and how long it has been growing them. Also when one gets damaged, they can grow another. Been at it for more than 40 years…
3) In 2016, Bernie's legions of ideological purists were blinded by their zeal. And joining them were those who voted for third-party candidates. Together, they gave oxygen to what's become a conflagration of hate that threatens to destroy democracy. I doubt many recognize much less accept their culpability. Pragmatism should rule the day in politics and governing.
I am also furious with those types who, even after death star became the occupant of the WH, held on to their views about HRC. They are still bleating unfortunately, as I reported here about the person complaining that the Elect a D in the new district six in Oregon has Joe (and Kamala) on the top of the page. We need to have a candidate that appeals to more than just Bernie Bros. When I read a letter like today's, I am very glad to be older and have no direct descendants.
I never liked either Clinton or voted for either - in a primary. I campaigned for both in general elections. After caucusing for Sanders, I worked my heart out volunteering for Hillary almost full time for months leading up to election day. My listening to voters convinced me early on that she might lose. People either wouldn't voter for her or believed her predicted win didn't need their vote.
I could go one on one with any Trumpster, Bro, or Dirtbag about the Clintons' personal defects and degradation of the Democratic party. Hillary's dismissing Dean's 50 state strategy, her building bridges to nowhere in Texas instead of mending fences in Wisconsin ... and her 'Trump can't win, I can't lose' arrogance ... all contributed to Trump's win.
Among my activist acquaintances, the majority of Sanders supporters voted and volunteered for Clinton. Just as in 2020 we who'd supported Warren worked to elect Biden.
I don't blame Sanders although I am glad he was more full throated for Biden than for Clinton. Jill Stein is another story but her disgruntled supporters were just as counterproductive.
She was not my first choice and I am aware of her failings, but once she was the candidate, we had choice between her who would have listened to her intelligence reports, not denied COVID, kissed Putin's ass, etc. What we got was a egomaniac dunce who has no redeeming human characteristics, a pile of corruption, and a absolute threat to our democracy. Biden is president now and some these people are still complaining about him instead of touting what has been accomplished. I am not active in terms of being out there, but we did attend one Marion County D meeting where a couple of egos who claimed to be progressive were trying to take over. I felt sorry for their candidate for whatever who was being used big time. Then they tried an underhanded maneuver and insulted someone who had slogged for years in the trenches to make the world a better place and elect Ds. I sat here with a person who, after death star had been elected, did not acknowledge what we had. He even tried to mansplain about US foreign policy. I am a history major, took a whole course on American foreign policy, keep up with current events, and am well aware of of our foreign policy foolishness. He and his mother listened to what his brother described as slit your wrist radio. Fundamentalism in religion and/or politics does not sit well with me.
In the latest on this, I tried to explain to someone that Biden and Harris now lead the party and it would no good to complain that their pictures were at the top of a group page created by someone else. So I heard the word toxic and 7 people upvoted her comment because they felt 'safe' to do so. I don't know what the hell that means. She should know who the enemy is because she is often out videoing the local party of death gatherings, Proud Boys, and religious nuts who took over a large city park all summer. I support her in this, but electing someone in our newly created district requires something beyond purity.
I hope so too. I really am sorry about what young people have to face in this and so many other matters. I do have nieces, nephews, greats and great greats. Most of them are already in the underclass and having children seems to be what they do best.
I'm in the same boat; no direct descendants. BUT: my nephew is one sharp man, and really is doing the political work. My four nieces are all doing well; one is raising two smart, independent girls, one is chugging along running day care and an etsy store, one is (very nearly) a newly minted Captain for Horizon Air, and the fourth is doing post baccalaureate clinical research and applying for graduate school (she is also politically involved).
I'm also sad that Pete DeFazio is retiring; he makes a good point that at 75 it's "time to go", it is just that I hope this doesn't give Alek Skarlatos his seat. Pete seems to have confidence in the democratic majority in his district, but I am worried.
Val Hoyle is running for his seat. Only two of my nephews and their children do well. One is in Eugene and his lady is the manager of the Eugene Symphony. So he's getting an education in classical music which we love. On the other side in the midwest, most of them rail against what they don't understand. I caught one's wife posting Q nonsense. I try to explain. I have no hope for them.
3. I have the utmost distain for those "Bernie Bros", or the "Green Party" voters, who either failed to vote or voted for the third party candidate. I also hold in contempt those (formerly) reasonable Republicans who "held their nose and voted for tRump".
I had to explain to one of my LMTs why he had been conned by the Green Party Candidate whose name I am blocking out I guess because I can't remember it right now.
You don't see the problem. You have joined it. It doesn't matter if the Democrats nominate my dog to run against TFG. By not voting, you will be voting for the monster.
I may share some concerns about Joe Biden. But if you don't see the value of the direction he has taken us in, then I wonder what your values are?
Biden has reversed an enormous amount of the damage done by TFG simply through executive orders. His cabinet is diverse. He has shepherded the most powerful batch of legislation in decades and has saved thousands if not millions of lives. He ended a stupid war. He is resuming alliances. He is not giving campaign info (and who knows what else at Helsinki) to Putin.
I'll forgive Biden a stumbled sentence. He doesn't have to talk and walk like George Clooney for me. I did not vote for Joe in the primary. But he has not disappointed me.
To "abstain" is to assist in the destruction of our democracy.
We did not vote for Biden to be a movie star or great orator. We voted for him to get things done. This isn’t a reality tv show where you make your decisions based on the cuts the producers decide you will see. The right wing only pick little clips to make Biden look bad. Watch a press conference and pay attention to their gotcha questions. Notice how they hate that Jill Biden is such an honest caring person the edit videos to make her look bad or denigrate her doctorate. These are the very same people who defended Trump for every one of his senile, sick and twisted moments including him getting in a car with Covid to wave to his fans.
You make these statements without ever stating a single thing that Biden has done to make anyone think he is senile. My grandfather was sharp as a tack at 95 even though he had heart problems.
Pretending your statement has anything worthwhile and posting it makes me wonder why you are here. Not voting is a vote against democracy. Not voting and coming out here to denigrate the candidates shows you are willing to let every issue and every candidate pass or win because of some flimsy name calling.
I don't recognize this "hbaeurele" from any prior dayd and I suspect David Carroll took a new name? This group tends to just ignore DC and spoil his fun! Awfully hard to be a landline heavy breather on this forum!!
I find the difference in age between tfg and Biden--what is it? 4 years?--to be laughable to saddle Biden with the "old". And while I don't think Biden is at all "senile" I will take that over full-blown psychosis of the orange one.
At 88 I am both tacky and sharp as a tack. Though my sustained energy is less than in yesteryear, my comprehension of what is important has sharpened and I have a greater ability to compromise in order to find a solution rather than some intractable confrontation. Biden, as a relative youngster, suits me just fine. By contrast, Trump flunked at birth and has deteriorated even more in recent years.
Mike S, I have added you to my list of names to look for as you often post astute comments, as is this one is. That being said, I highly suspect that this "commenter" is David Carroll who is a long term troll here, don't waste your intelligence on him. I skim past his posts, don't even read them but have noticed that pretty much everyone ignores him now. I suggest doing the same with his latest iteration.
I agree. TFG has shown signs of senility for quite a while. Anyone remember the stumbling ramp walk and the inability to hold a glass? What about the word salads he dishes up? Remember that doctored hurricane map? LOL! We are no longer subjected to the rantings of a crazed maniac who could not spell on Twitter, thank goodness. But I remember when. Whatever he has snorted or sniffed or taken in pill form has, by now, severely affected whatever remains of brain cells (assuming there were many functioning to begin with.) It is laughable to compare him with the brainpower and ability of our president to utter a speech without having to read it (poorly) off Sharpie notes written on gigantic cards. Biden is in the business of governing and juggling many, massive challenges. All TFG ever did was eat and play golf and watch TV and break things. Other than the golf, he spent his four years as much in assisted living as any person who has dementia and lives with incontinence.
There is a video of TFG being interviewed by Larry King in the late '90s. The difference between 45 then and now is amazing. Back then he was totally coherent, articulate, and how a lot of left wing views--on abortion and family planning, among other things. Yeah, he's definitely senile. (my understanding is the stumbling ramp walk and inability to hold a glass were likely ministrokes.)
Ellen, I love your image of Trump spending four years using the voluminous services and extensive support staff of the White House as his personal, single-patient nursing home/psychiatric inpatient facility.
I don't know where you're getting the impression that Biden is senile. He most certainly is doing a superb job in extremely trying circumstances--a razor thin majority in the House, a majority only because the VP can cast the deciding vote in the Senate, two extremely recalcitrant Democratic senators (I'm referring to Manchin and Sinema in case that's not obvious to you), and Mitch McConnell, whose measure can be inferred by the fact that his three daughters are estranged from him, running the GOPers in the Senate with an iron hand.
It is obvious from reading just slightly deeply in the better newspapers that Biden is in command of all of his faculties. He and Nancy Pelosi inspire me that one can continue to be effective as one approaches, and passes 80 years.
Biden doesn’t serve alone he comes with an EXTREMELY competent administration, which is the opposite of the club of thieves. Whatever, you do you, and be proud you destroyed the world, we’ll all know who did it.
Every time you don't vote, you make the vote of the opposition more powerful. Your vote counts! By abstaining you give in to the bullies and lose your voice.
If that is how you refer to President of the United States Biden then perhaps it is best you refrain from participating in elections. I never understand someone's need to announce not voting. Here is some perspective. There are millions and millions and millions of voters. No worries. We are fine.
I respectfully disagree (about the number of voters) , Barbara. As the last two elections showed, every vote counts, especially in the battleground states. People like "hbauerle" are part of the reason that the Orange Asscactus won in 2016.
With due respect. My point is let's not get taken hostage by those who are throwing the "I am not going to vote" stuff around. Frankly I think it is an attention getting ruse.
Let's move on to working where the voters need information, registering to vote and getting to the polls.
And thank you for the "respectfully disagree" part.
Oh for crying out loud, grow up! Either you're a bot or just plain ridiculous. Under incredibly difficult obstacles, Biden has done an amazing job getting results that work for all Americans. And, he has done so with grace, compassion, and leadership in putting together an administration that doesn't make us gag every morning! If you had any intellectual ability to assimilate real information and facts you'd understand that.
Calling me stupid is rather something i associates with Trump supporters but hey get used to losing with Biden.. maybe thats his new campaign slogan? losin’ with Biden
Bernie would have lost to the Orange Asscactus. Period. His views are NOT in line with those of the majority of American voters. Would Bernie have flipped Arizona? Georgia? I think not. But, hey, you do you. Oh, and FYI, Biden BEAT TFG in November of 2020. So, your comment about "losin' with Biden" is just plain silly.
I stand by my original statement. The loss by Hillary Clinton to TFG in 2016 is every bit as much on you as it is on the Orange Asscactus' cultish supporters. You own it.
The reason Biden was elected was because he appealed to the masses. He was ahead of every other candidate in the primaries. How can you not understand that? Oh, but you do. Take you glib, hate filled rhetoric and go to one of the social media sites that tolerate them. People on this forum care about facts and actions to get things done.
We will have to live with whoever gets the nomination, so again, if you "sit out" 2024 because you're sulking over the fact that your chosen candidate didn't get the nomination, our slide into reactionaryism is as much on you as it is on the Republicans. Oh, and one other thing: If your candidate doesn't get enough votes to get the nomination, maybe--just maybe--your candidate ISN'T someone who will "appeal to the masses". We all live to a degree in echo chambers of like-minded thinkers, but the fact of the matter is that not everyone agrees with you.
If you slide out of the birth canal in 1950 and you are female, you are constantly barraged by life showing up where you have very few options for affecting change. Your first kiss and what might have been your first husband, is blown out of the sky over Viet Nam (or was it really Cambodia?) and from there life is a series of challenges when you can do little to affect change. It appears to me that currently, retaining the filibuster is more important than finding a remedy for minority rule. Retaining the filibuster is more important than finding a path to restore voting rights for all people. Retaining gerrymandering means that Republicans will “govern” from the standpoint of being a minority. The Supremes were hijacked by Mitch McConnell which means they will finally get total control over women’s bodies. How is it that McConnell is not called out for court packing? Why can’t the Democrats add three progressive thinking Judges to the court? My life is all about the inability to affect change, yet I somehow cannot stop trying.
"My life is all about the inability to affect change, yet I somehow cannot stop trying." I'm almost 70 and am thinking about what my life would be if, back then in the '70s - two young girls, hardly any money, and a fling (with birth control) that sent me to a Manhattan abortion clinic. No-one shamed me; just kindness; no judgement. Thank g-d for Roe vs. Wade.
Carla, your final sentence brought Dylan Thomas' words to me: "Do not go gentle into that good night, Rage, rage against the dying of the light." We have to rage against the dying of our democracy.
To some extent at least, one can choose to rage or to be frustrated, probably partly depending on one's circumstances. I hope you can turn that frustration into rage, or something more productive.
Who is going to adopt the microcephaly/anencephaly baby, or baby that requires multiple heart surgeries? The anatomy scan is done at 20 weeks. It’s not accurate at 15 weeks. If it’s ruled that life begins at conception, then women should start earning child tax credits upon a PPT (positive pregnancy test). And men should start paying child support. Women can garnish back pay for child support if paternity tests are required. Prenatal care and delivery coverage. Postpartum care and lactation support. Formula. We’re all in this together. It takes two to make a baby.
I don’t know what pivots dems and independents can do, but I feel like they need to be a bit more nimble with these chips away at democracy. I’m not a fan of incentivizing childbirth either, or using abortion as a quick fix for birth control as the other extreme. But 15 weeks is too soon.
Speaking of right to life, how about some gun control reforms so our kids aren’t shot to death at school? What about their right to life? As a mom with school-age kids who moved recently, when picking schools, I specifically thought about which schools have the highest safety likelihood. Things are very different now than when I was in school. Twitter has some decent info on the Michigan shooting, but kids and young journalists are posting on TikTok, with a more granular flare. There are some interesting videos there with additional details of events leading up to the shooting, including letters sent out by the principal about a week apart dispelling any rumors of safety risks, a severed deer’s head placed in the school courtyard, graffiti on the school, weird stuff on his social media accounts, that students took video during the event saying that he (the shooter) actually followed through with it. Some students knew or had a big suspicion the day of and stayed home from school that day. It is heartbreaking. I hope my children will never experience the horror these kids went through. I hope as a parent, I never have to get that text or phone call. These school shootings are uniquely a US problem.
Actually, for any unwanted pregnancy the father should be REQUIRED to raise the child, alone.
This would immediately result in abortion being legal from the moment a women tells the furture father of the pregnancy.
So, just write a law that if the WOMAN does not want the baby the FATHER MUST raise the kid.
In today's world of DNA this is a very, very enforcable approach.
Both people participated in inception equally. So, if the woman does NOT want to participate in child raising, force the kid on the Dad and put him in jail if he does not agree immediately to take on all child raising responsibility.
While it may seem a way to get men more interested in supporting abortion rights, I am fearful that the parties such legislation would most punish are the unwanted children impacted by this suggestion. I realize that it may have been a bit of intended irony or perhaps satire intentions that provoked this suggestion. I feel strongly the best approach is to support women's reproductive rights.
Many states require men to pay child support. My daughter never went after it when my grandson was a baby but when she’d died and he was 16 I used the DHS in Arizona to go after him. They filed all the paperwork and we only had to go to court. They didn’t go back previous to her death but he was required to pay $750 a month for the last 2 years. Arizona took this money directly from him and gave it in an EBT card every month. I think California does the same. There was no cost to us and we had legal representation the entire way.
I think women in states that deny them an abortion should name one of their congressmen as the father of their child. Make them prove its not theirs. Also, why do so many assume that women forced to have a baby are going to keep them? Where's the money for foster care or orphanages coming from?
Stephen King could make a fortune on a new book: Nobody's Child. It could go something like this - six people in robes make a ruling that all babies must be born, regardless of the circumstances, so in 2022, several hundreds of thousands of newborns, conceived by incest and rape, were delivered in boxes to the six. Those who were female were all tagged with the name "Amy" and the males were all tagged "Coney." The mothers were all named "Mama" and the dads were named accordingly as "unknown rapist" "grandfather" "uncle" "brother", etc. The true mothers were never identified, since most of these births did not occur in hospitals. The unidentified mothers simply dropped off the box with the babe inside and disappeared into the anonymity of society. The six robed people were thus left in charge of thousands of unidentified newborns. They then began to traffic in them and were investigated by the DOJ and arrested by the FBI.
Doesn't this sound like a winner? I could just envision the look on Ms Amy's face when her doorbell rings one morning and she finds herself facing hundreds of crying infants in boxes, all named for her. LOL! It's a sick idea, but Stephen King could make it fly.
I believe all states have laws that presume parental rights, and a person has to take a series of affirmative steps in legal proceedings to relinquish one's parental rights to a child. Every state has child protection agencies that include administration of various agencies and organizations for foster care--no more orphanages, per se.
Are there still orphanages or are they immediately sent to foster care? That money is coming from *gasp* our taxes and the GOP would call it socialism. My father was a foster child during the war when my grandmother couldn’t care for him. There was no money paid to the parents then. I don’t know the exact years but he was born in 1929.
My father-in-law came from a foster care background; his mom was crazy and absent, his dad left the 4 kids (two older sisters and one younger sister for him) alone. The state stepped in; the youngest girl went with a family member, the older two girls went to one family and my father-in-law to another (he was born in 1935). He was reunited with his family in the late 1940's in Crescent City, CA. He does not speak fondly of that time, and his two older sisters were never very stable as adults.
My father rarely spoke about being raised in someone else’s home. In my early teens I learned that a good sized part of my family considered aunts, uncles and cousins were actually from his foster family so it couldn’t be too bad. I also learned many deep, dark secrets about who my biological grandfather was verses the vague father my dad would talk about who was not in the picture. I had always had my bio grandfather because they married when he was 10. When I divorced I took his last name instead of my maiden name and it thrilled him.
I don't know....probably not.....which is what begs the question.
During WWII, the some of the kids in England got sent to live with friends outside the cities. So I'm sure that was happening in the US too. My guess is your dad's case was because of the depression or the dust bowl.
Maybe. There’s a lot of weird family history and everything was always a secret. No one ever wanted to tell the whole story and I had trouble finding stuff in the National Archives.
Aye, that is not exactly what I was thinking, but, basically, in the high probability case of not being raped (most births are not from rape), if the woman does not want the child, force the man to come to the table and raise the kid or significantly participate in raising the kid.
The reason men want to outlaw abortion is they want to force women to raise them.
IF men were required to raise the kids, abortion would be instantly made legal.
This might be true. I don't really know. I spent a huge effort and time raising my own two kids (their Mom travelled a lot) and I hope they don't feel abused and certainly they were never dead or sexually abused.
Maybe when I limited my son's time on that ridiculous XBox he felt abused, I don't know, and, I don't care. I felt he should be reading a good book or doing his homework instead.
Of course there are great dads and the world needs more like you, Mike! Sadly, there is a bigger picture out there.
Forcing parenthood on people of either gender is a bad set up for children who are dependent on adults to care for them. The risk of child abuse and neglect goes up in proportion to the caregiver’s lack of emotional bonding with the child, and is compounded by factors of race, poverty, substance abuse, and unresolved trauma.
Child protection agencies are putting more money and effort into Project Fatherhood programs to nurture fathers’ involvement and caring for their children. It’s not simple.
Without putting words into Ellie's mouth, I have some suspicions about where she's coming from. Overwhelmingly, child abuse (physical and sexual) is perpetrated by men. Sometimes the biological father, sometimes a male partner of the biological mother. (This is not to say that women do not engage in these activities; the most horrific child abuse case of my career was a woman who starved and beat her oldest daughter to death. The evidence in that case was so overwhelming that she pled guilty to Intentional Murder of a Child leaving only the penalty phase of her trial to be adjudicated. Oregon now has three stellar examples of lesbian couples that kill their kids with one that broke in the news this week.)
There are a lot of people who are not destined to be good parents, be it from nature (who they are as people), nurture (what they grew up with), or lacking in the mental/emotional capacity to be parents. Admittedly, as a 28 year cop, I got to see a lot of this, and what it comes down to in my unstudied but observed opinion is a combination of poverty, prior abuse, and a paradigm in our culture that gives men and women "different" responsibilities with respect to almost everything.
You wrote: "If it’s ruled that life begins at conception, then women should start earning child tax credits upon a PPT (positive pregnancy test). And men should start paying child support. Women can garnish back pay for child support if paternity tests are required. Prenatal care and delivery coverage. Postpartum care and lactation support. Formula. We’re all in this together. It takes two to make a baby."
YES!
When our inhumane governor denied Medicaid to our neediest, I advocated for all those who got kicked out of nursing homes to be taken in their wheelchairs and left on Abbot's front lawn. His decision. His responsibility.
So if Ms Barrett (I refuse to grant her the title of "justice") and her partners in crime want to toss RvW because all those unwanted babies can be "adopted," I suggest that those infants be dropped off in their bassinets on the FRONT LAWNS of those who made the decision. Their decision. Their responsibility. Think of it. Tens of thousands of crying infants on the front lawns of six robed wannabe dictators.
I love your imagery here. I think that perhaps a suitable name for that person should be "judge Three Names" (no typo, judge here is a job title, not an honorific as Judge is.)
If the baby is "white, blonde, blue-eyed, and healthy" there is no problem finding adoptive parents. Anything else, not so much. Will states be abler to dictate sterilization for Black or Brown women without husbands or with "too many" kids?
If they overturn Roe vs Wade, will the courts also overturn Brown vs Board of Education?
Soon there will be 38 states calling for a Constitutional Convention. Welcome to Gilead.
Question: Do the corporate Dems care or are they onside with the destruction of American Democracy?
“If the baby is "white, blonde, blue-eyed, and healthy" there is no problem finding adoptive parents. “
So true and $$$$$, often going to those religiously-affiliated adoption agencies.
I’m horrified at the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned and the very real possibility of many more infants, of any race, being available for adoption.
As an adoptee, I can tell you it is just not normal being separated from your origins.
Adoptees have a significantly higher rate of mental illness, suicide and addiction.
And so many of those “open adoptions” often become not so open…
I seem to recall some laws that indicated that willfully spreading diseases to people unaware of your condition (HIV for example) was subject to criminal prosecution for endangering the lives of others
This despicable behavior will undoubtably be excused by despicable people
The sadness caused in this acceptance by some of my countrymen is becoming heavy
You’re forgetting about all the double standards in place allowing Wealthy, Holders of influential position, Republicans, Men, Whites, Christians to get away with things which Low / Middle Income, Non-influential position holder, Democrats, Women, BIPOC, and non-Christian’s (particularly Muslims) would be held to a considerably higher standard.
"[Rep. Liz Cheney] said: '[Trump] has recently suggested that he wants to debate members of this committee.' The committee’s investigation 'is not a game,' Cheney said. 'Any communications Mr. Trump has with this committee will be under oath and if he persists in lying then, he will be accountable under the laws of this great nation, and subject to criminal penalties for every false word he speaks.'"
I feel it is important to recognize the linkage between Republican male legislators' suppression of women's reproductive rights and their opposition to enacting paid family leave legislation. Here is the text of my own Letter to the Editor of our local newspaper on this:
The U.S. is way behind the curve on paid family leave -
In the SCOTUS oral arguments on Mississippi’s restrictive abortion law, Mississippi’s lawyers made the argument that “women have progressed enough economically since the1970s” to make abortion unnecessary. This statement in support of a restrictive new law on abortion rights constitutionally protected for almost 50 years and passed overwhelmingly by Republican male lawmakers is not supported by the realities of U.S. paid family leave policies.
It is important to understand the economic impact on women of restrictive abortion rights. Pregnancies often result in women losing employment for a variety of reasons, many health-related. Often that loss is not transitory. Additionally, after returning to the workplace women find child-rearing responsibilities are often career limiting. This is compounded by the U.S. being way, way behind the curve on paid family leave policies. The U.S. is one of only 7 countries worldwide that does not presently offer some form of paid maternity leave. Of those 7, the U.S. is by far the largest. The other six are Papua New Guinea and several small Pacific island nations. The average length of maternity leave for those countries offering this benefit is 29 weeks. Even with the endangered 4 weeks of paid family leave in the new Democratic proposed Build Back Better Act, of the 186 countries that offer paid leave for new mothers, only one, Eswatini (once called Swaziland), offers fewer than four weeks. Of the 174 countries that offer paid leave for a personal health problem, just 26 offer four weeks or fewer, according to data from the World Policy Analysis Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The restrictive abortion rights legislation being passed in states like Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and other states is being passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures overwhelmingly dominated by male Republican representatives. Let us be clear that these are the same party’s male federal legislators standing in the way of advancing paid family leave legislation.
Women’s reproductive rights are an economic justice issue and Republican men are not on the side of women on this issue.
Be informed and support economic justice for women and women’s reproductive rights.
"Here are two actions you can take to pressure the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the constitutional rights recognized in Roe v. Wade.
...The current reactionary majority could be relegated to a permanent minority by enlarging the Court. That would be a bleak future for Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts.
Though expanding the Court may be a longshot, the threat of expansion was enough to chasten a reactionary majority on the Supreme Court in 1937. The Senate has a bill on its docket that would increase the size of the Court to thirteen. Call Chuck Schumer and your Senators (here) urging them to co-sponsor and pass the Judiciary Act (S.1141). Supreme Court Justices do not live in a vacuum. The media will report a groundswell of support for enlarging the Court. Even if it does not happen immediately, the threat of expansion may be enough to slow or stop the reactionary majority’s religious and social agenda.
Second, we can pressure Congress to pass legislation to codify the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade. Call your Senators (here) and urge them to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 (S.1975). You can also use an automated text-bot that will generate a letter from you to your U.S. Senators by texting SIGN PRRBTG to 50409. Please share this information with friends, family, and social media followers. Also, subscribe to Chop Wood, Carry Water by Jessica Craven for daily updates on actions you can take to help preserve democracy."
As a former nun in 1968, when women were advocating for abortion rights in shopping malls, prior to Roe, I had to learn that I could be opposed to abortion for myself, but at the same time must support a woman's right to choose abortion. Why? Because when abortion is illegal, rich women travel to where it's legal and poor women die.
I tried for months before 2016, both in person and on social media, to warn (especially liberal) democrats about what would happen to the courts, and therefore to individual rights, especially the right to choose abortion, if the republican won. (I cannot say his name.) But all I got in response was yammering about how awful Senator Clinton was and how wrong it was that Bernie didn't get the nomination.
So, what good can come of this? Could it be a lesson learned about how the various factions of democrats can hold their own views, but in the end need to come together to agree upon and work for what's possible and to protect what's in danger? That's my hope and prayer. And my motivation for asking, What is mine to do? Blessings.
I did the same thing; I told my friends that this was not as much a presidential election as it was an election over the Supreme Court. They didn't listen. Well, some did, and voted for tRump because of that.
Yes, the republicans, going back to Ronald Reagan, did a great job of recruiting the religious right by aligning with "pro-life" movement and riling up outrage about killing babies. And that would have been ok if they were advocating education and activism to promote their views. But what the republicans were really after was voters, and they got very good at turning one group against another, and blurring the line between supporting freedom of religious beliefs and working to force those beliefs on the rest of the country. We've got to have legislation that promotes voting rights so the majority "of the governed" have the power to protect individual rights. And we've got to get better at messaging...and find a powerful positive alternative to riling up outrage if we're going to recruit new voters.
"Trump’s contingent refused to wear masks despite rules at the venue to do so."
My first reaction to this disclosure was 'can we all say ... sociopath?' My second was 'can we all say ... banality of evil?'
Trump does not get to be Trump without a scaffolding of corruption propping him up - a myriad of people mindless of the harm they are perpetrating.
The Constitution essentially translates the religious dictum of The Golden Rule into civic life. Instead of creed, it gives us an agreed legal framework. Instead of belief, it gives us reasoned debate of empirical evidence.
The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. The Roberts Court is just going through the motions while allowing religious and racist prejudice to rule the day.
Republicans are running on irrationality and authoritarianism. Because they can. Because a sufficient number of Americans vote for them. And because a significant number cannot bring themselves to unite in opposition or even to vote at all.
Agreed. Trump seems to have met all the criteria for sociopathy in the DSM IV. The real "banality of evil" (great reference by the way) is the apathy still demonstrated by a sizeable chunk of the electorate. Have they no eyes? No brains? No hearts?
My impression, from 15 years of knocking on doors and phone banking to get out the vote, is that while some people truly have no time (for politics, to vote) many people simply have no interest. I think I've heard every 'reason' for not voting (if I vote then I'll be called for jury duty / oh my dear I'm really not smart enough to make such important decisions / if I vote then I'm part of the corruption) and then I hear another.
People are convinced that: my vote doesn't count; my vote won't be counted; all politicians are the same; and nothing ever changes. That they are is one of the most significant achievements of voter suppression - from the Right and the Left.
On the other hand, as I approach almost anybody on 'my turf' I've spoken to a lot of people who don't show up on any list. It was hard to know what to say to someone parked in the parking lot of a closed store - who turned out to have lost everything snd was living in her car; somehow, after Bill Clinton's / the DNC's shift to Wall Street, it was hard to sound convincing that 'Democrats care more and support more essential and emergency assistance (and of course, with Republicans saying No and then taking credit for the Dough.) It gets complicated.
I never had any trouble figuring out who the caring party was - in more than 60 years of paying attention. Even back when my favorite pol was Everett Dirksen, but then he was eclipsed by Barbara Jordan.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"By risking others’ lives without their knowledge or consent, Trump claimed the right to dominate them."
If only Trump were as clever as the above sentence makes him appear.
In fact, Trump only thinks about himself, others never enter his mind. As a Covid positive person, he only thought of himself and, hence, continued to do whatever he wanted without regard or a single thought about anyone else.
He was probably hyped on steroids at the debate with Biden explaining his completely unhinged behavior.
At any rate, Trump will dominate anyone else, if they let him, not because that is a carefully constructed throught strategy, but, because he is only ever, ever thinking of one person.
Trump.
Usually, middle school helps train bullies to become people as other people stand up to the bully and whip him/them enough times to help him realize other people exist. (at least that was the civilizing method when I was a kid).
But, at the age of Middle School, I think, Trump was tossed into a fancy private school where he was treated with kid gloves. Other kids who would normally have helped him understand their existence were cautioned to let him be.
And, so, we now have a 12 year old bully ramming around the country thinking only of himself and doing whatever he wants and....
....let's be clear......not just getting by with it......being enabled to get by with it.
Same old, same old for Trump. Nobody will stand up. Our entire government was attacked at his command, to overthrow the duly elected result,
The Texas anti-abortion vigilante injustice law made me livid. Taking away women's Constitutional right through the sleazy work-around of vigilantism was particularly vexing. Yes, the courts are allowing this law to continue while they "decide" whether it violates the Constitutional rights of 50% of the People. The proceedings in the Supreme Court on Dec. 1 again makes me see red. The sleazy arguments of this illegitimate Supreme Court after the Majority Leader McConnell blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland and then pushed three anti-Roe justices through confirmation under tfg's administration was in contempt of the Constitution in my view. I'll make separate points for a number of my arguments following this comment.
Fifth, Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas should recuse themselves from any decision about women's rights because they have been credibly accused of violating women's rights. In fact, I don't see that all these super majority male state legislatures should have any standing in the courts over women's rights.
Fourth, Justice Barrett talking about forcing women to take a fetus full term as no big deal because it wasn't a burden for the women to parent the child because you could just leave it on the steps of an adoption agency doesn't take in the account of the burden, even life-threatening, of nine months of pregnancy. She herself has seven children of which two are adopted and one has Down Syndrome. Why does the party of small government think they have the right to force the burden of pregnancy on anyone?
Justice Barrett should recuse herself for claiming Safe Haven laws are the answer.
Just too personal for her ??
Safe Haven laws restored the option of one person legally abandoning a child and thus determining the rights of both parents…..yes, we time traveled back to the Baby Scoop Era.
Current adoption laws at least have some practices which “should”provide some domestic adoptees with any information about birth families and (even in states where records are still sealed, and kept sealed by right-leaning politicians. Texas comes to mind,Cathy)and also provide parents considering relinquishment with information, resources, and a way to change their minds in a certain time frame. Safe haven laws essentially legalize anonymous baby dumping with no records kept on the parents.
First, the Supreme Court is now illegitimate and in Contempt of the Constitution by blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland and then pushing through Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett ignoring the argument they made for not giving the Garland nomination due process because it was a year away from an election. The stench as Justice Sotomayor so elegantly called with this court is very much indeed fouling the air.
Third, the argument that the word "abortion" is not in the Constitution is a specious argument at best. Neither is the word "woman" in the Constitution. Women were not included in "All men are created equal". Women were essentially the property of their husbands. Even the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote doesn't use the word "woman" using the word "sex" instead. And, the only "right" given to women was the right to vote.
Second, this is a freedom of religion issue. There are many different religious views about when life begins or a soul enters the fetus, a potential human being. In Jewish religion, the fetus is a potential human being. The life of the pregnant woman, an actual human being, takes precedence over the potential being fetus. Here is an excellent article on this viewpoint. https://religionnews.com/2021/09/02/texass-abortion-ban-is-against-my-religion-as-a-rabbi-i-will-defy-it-if-necessary/ I like how Barbara Bush, in the biography of her written by Susan Page, put it that whatever happens to the fetus, God will take care of that soul.
I yearn for the day when Donald J. Trump and his thugs no longer make the news either in print or in the electronic media. Trump is a toxic cancer that simply refuses to go into remission.
As to abortion: I have always considered this matter to be the decision of the woman. If a man is involved, I would hope that he would be consulted. Leaning on Scripture, life begins upon exit from the womb. Some chap said on the news last night that "killing a baby is against the Bible", because "the Bible says its so". Yeah? Really? We have grown a large population cursed with lots of opinion and very few brains to support those opinions. The United States thrives on ignorance, embellished by a less-than-integrity-drivien media. Frankly, I do not see this as any real or genuine concern about human life. I see this as an effort to furtter rule over a woman's body.
There is an excellent book that I recommend to the group here: "My Year of Living Biblically" by A.J. Jacobs. He is a hilarious writer but takes a serious, scholarly look at whatever he is investigating. In this year, he shows how incredibly difficult to "live Biblically" as the tenets are often contradictory. While he is Jewish, his story can apply to anyone who uses the bible as their guide. (And those Conservatives, esp the legalistic Baptists, would NOT like it!)
I entered graduate study at Seminary later in life, leaving a company as one of its vice presidents. During that graduate study I learned how much I did NOT know about Holy Scripture or that period in human history. Upon graduating Seminary, I realized how much LESS I know and how many more questions and curiosities remain unanswered and unexplained.
"Roe v. Wade was part of the dramatic expansion of civil rights after World War II, in which Republican-led Supreme Courts used the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution to enable the federal government to overrule discriminatory state laws and protect individuals’ civil rights. It was on these grounds that the court protected Black and Brown rights, interracial marriage, access to birth control, religious freedom, gay rights, and so on."
The thought that Roe v. Wade may be abolished is devastating. Once more, women will be deprived of their rights! Once again, men will gain control over women's bodies. Once again, women will be denied their inalienable birthright, authority, and freedom to act as their own moral agents! How dare these men (and one woman) strip us of our rights!!!
I would like to see the rule of law win in our democracy and that includes consequences for stolen SCOTUS seats. Perhaps those were technically not due to broken laws, however they were definitely due to poisonous shenanigans that need to be clearly defined and laws made to prevent a minority party from pulling such BS in the future that subverts us from becoming the nation we were all promised. Women must have agency over their own bodies. If not there will be hell to pay in untold ways.
Just reading Robert Hubbell’s blog for today and he nails my concerns in ways far beyond my abilities. “But make no mistake, this is a setback only, not a defeat.
Republicans plotted for a half a century to overturn Roe v. Wade. They created a legal society of conservative lawyers whose sole purpose was to churn out conservative judges who would chip away at the constitutional right to abortion. Republican candidates for president uniformly vowed to nominate justices for the Supreme Court only if they agreed to overrule Roe v. Wade. Republicans changed the size of the Court from nine to eight and then back to nine based on the whim of one man—Mitch McConnell—to ensure that Trump was able to appoint two illegitimate justices to the Court. They nominated and confirmed a justice one week before a presidential election, breaking all norms for judicial nominations and in violation of the special rule created by Mitch McConnell only four years earlier. Trump’s Supreme Court nominees lied to individual Senators and the Senate Judiciary Committee when questioned about their views of Roe v. Wade. And, finally, Republicans are willing to forever destroy the legitimacy of the Supreme Court by bending to the will of a religious minority.
The shameful Republican campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade was based on deceit, betrayal, and dark money. There is nothing in what Republicans have done that is worthy of emulation—except for their single-minded focus for a half a century on achieving their objective. If they can do that, we can, too. But we can do so better, and faster. Congress can pass legislation setting uniform standards regarding the availability of abortions. And Democrats can enlarge the Court to break the stranglehold of the reactionary supermajority created by the appointment of three justices who lied to Congress about their intentions.
But everything that Democrats can do is dependent on retaining control of the House, expanding the margin of control in the Senate, and retaining control of the presidency. The imminent abrogation of a settled constitutional right should be enough to shake Democrats out of their “business as usual slumber” that seems to have becalmed the fervor that defeated Trump and flipped the Senate in 2020.
The demise of Roe v. Wade should be enough to mobilize millions of young voters whose most personal reproductive decisions will be controlled by religious zealots in state legislatures. But if it is not, there is a somber reality that we must accept: It will get worse. Much. The unbounded reactionary majority on the Court will not stop until it has turned back the clock on civil rights and civil liberties by a century. Any claim of infringement of religion—no matter how attenuated or frivolous—will be sufficient to overturn state and federal legislation. Regulation of firearms will become constitutionally impermissible. And a bedrock judicial principle that is the basis of every civil right protected by the Court of over the last seventy years in in danger. If it falls—and it might—then decisions guaranteeing the right to equal education, to purchase contraception, and to marry someone of a different race or of the same sex are all at risk.” Grand Slam ❤️:
I remember watching that debate and thinking that it really looked like Trump was trying to spread germs. Regardless of the fact that he is a blowhard, he is not usually as expressive and vociferous as he was that night. It was weird, weirder than usual.
We knew Trump was a narcissistic sociopath. But willfully spreading a deadly disease during a pandemic is, in my mind, attempted murder. And those who didn't try to stop him or didn't resign in protest are accomplices. He's our first evil-to-the-core president, and he's not done trying to destroy the nation. In a sense, he is like a deadly virus, one that infects people with hate, rage, and immorality. There's no known cure.
Please read this "Today's Edition" by Robert Hubbell. It is an excellent followup to Heather's letter of today. It supports all that she has said about the court. And it includes a path to re-establishing democracy. https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/todays-edition-the-tipping-point
1) Does ANYONE else have any doubt that that Orange Asscactus went to that debate with the unstated but specific goal of giving President Biden Covid? Would you put that past him?
2) I also have zero doubt after hearing yesterday's argument before the Supreme Court on Mississippi's abortion law that Roe v. Wade is dead letter law. I am less certain as to whether the Court will overrule Roe completely or satisfy themselves with gutting it to the point where it no longer has any meaning. Regardless, I think that the Professor's concerns are entirely valid. Once the Court "does what it does", we will see a complete erosion of other federally protected rights (gay marriage will be high on that list, I am sure) and as Justice Sotomayor pointed out, the Court will (deservedly) lose legitimacy in the eyes of millions of Americans. As well, we are now seeing just how the Republican plan to stack the courts (and especially the Supreme Court) with right wing Justices has borne fruit. The Democrats closed their eyes for years to what was going on and now we as a country will pay a huge price for that lack of foresight.
3) One final thing, related to point number two above: I am beside myself with fury at those who sat out the 2016 election because "there is no difference between Trump and Clinton". Still think that, you idiots? I'm especially furious with the "Bernie Bros", who sat on their hands and sulked because their candidate didn't get the nomination. Had they not done so, there wouldn't be three Justices sitting on the Supreme Court who will now hand deliver the anti-choice movement the gift they have been awaiting since 1973. As far as I'm concerned, this is as much on them as it is on the Republicans.
Thank you Ian. You saved me a lot of typing. I share your fury. And I am particularly angry about your number 3. If you hear the sound of a freight train, see it's headlights as it bears down on you...do you get off the tracks or continue an argument over what to have for dinner?
As a Democratic Socialist (Social Democrat?) I am stunned by the stupidity and disunity of the left. The Federalist Society has been plotting this forever. Those three justices are in the process of creating our version of Gilead from the Handmaids Tale.
Our only hope now is to expand the size of the court. This trio of terrorists is young enough to outlive our kids.
Been watching the evil ooze for at least half of my long life. Bill Moyers warned us over and over. Fox and republicans before Rupert charged ahead with evil. Maybe enough people will now see the danger we face. Again I refer to Milton Mayer's "They Thought They Were Free: Germany 1935-1945" It is us...
The saddest part is that Rupert's #1 goal was never to change the political landscape. It was to make money, pure and simple. Dividing our country and creating a crazed cult of fanatics ready to tear down the Constitution out of the "poorly educated" was just the easiest means to that end.
If the US had a Page Six culture like the UK, none of this might have happened.
But you see, that's exactly the point. Unrestrained capitalism is utterly, irredeemably corrosive.
Back to the Gilded Age we go.
He did plenty of damage in the UK, Canada as well. One article I read, he said that the reason he got into politics was that whoever was in 10 Downing St would always answer the phone when he called. Don’t kid yourself, power is another goal, not just greed. In Jan 1981, NYT had an article about Republicans hosting a dinner for Rupert to honor his efforts to get Ronnie elected. Jack Kemp was quoted as saying that Rupert “used the editorial page, the front page, and every other page necessary to get Ronald Reagan elected President…” boy, did it pay off the the evil Machiavellian
Depending upon the "honor system" in the case of Donald Tя☭mp is a bad joke.
Unfortunately, #2 rings true for me. The Roe verdict will open the doors to many more federally protected being shot down. And, that probably means that I will have to go back into the closet. Depressing, at the very least. Infuriating at best.
I am so sorry that it does. This country seems to be on the verge of taking (yet another) large step backward.
This makes me wonder what Clarence Thomas is going to do when interracial marriages are banned again. Beware of what you wish....
I doubt he knows he’s black, been playing white for so long. Ginni may dump him unless he can still deliver significant power with that lifetime appointment
My thought exactly.
Exactly what they have in mind
You said it, Pam. Infuriating!
SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH SUBSTACK TODAY
I can only hit like or reply to one post. I then have to close & come back to hit one more like or reply.
Seeing these 10 repeats of the same post indicates it ain't just me.
Yes, I have had to hit the refresh button 3 times, one for each like or comment.
Rob, this was happening yesterday, also.
Yes, indeed, that happened to me, too, Rob -- and I couldn't contact Heather's site to find out if someone on her staff miscoded something. Seems to be fixed.
Yeah, I noticed it seemed to be working this afternoon
True
If you really want to lose your mind, then please consider that Leonard Leo, Federalist Society honcho and Opus Dei acolyte, having packed the courts to dismantle civil rights (yes, voter participation and reproductive rights are just the tip of the iceberg) and opened the fire hose of dark money, is now hard at work on dark money funded schemes to severely limit jury trials. Federal judges already overstep their role by overruling juries (something which even Justice Scalia was concerned about - but that was then.)
The 6th and 7th amendments speak to the Founders support for jury trials - they found that secret trials, particularly of colonists protesting crown abuses, were a strong curb on liberty.
As part of their erosion of government oversight and democratic participation, big money interests want to keep their 'fates' in the hands of 'their' judges.
https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/resource/our-rights/rights-chapter-18-right-trial-jury/
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-v
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-vi
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-vii/interps/125
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/leonard-leo-federalists-society-courts/
https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2020/10/10/snapshot-secret-funding-amicus-briefs-tied-leonard-leo-federalist-society-leader-promoter-amy-barrett/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/08/09/the-big-money-behind-the-big-lie
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=839500
https://judiciary.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=4794
I thought I couldn’t get any more disillusioned. However, I am not surprised. I have been watching the ooze for half of my life. They play hardball with cheating, propaganda, and no morals or integrity. We still blather about Fox’s latest evil but do nothing.
Please take heart. By uniting, we (Thank You James Clyburn) elected the Biden Harris ticket and a Democratic majority. They are hard at work and making progress. We have to roll up our sleeves for 2022.
I will, but I know how many arms the octopus has and how long it has been growing them. Also when one gets damaged, they can grow another. Been at it for more than 40 years…
Great post. It will take some time for me to go through it all. Thank you.
Well, geez, THAT's chilling.
3) In 2016, Bernie's legions of ideological purists were blinded by their zeal. And joining them were those who voted for third-party candidates. Together, they gave oxygen to what's become a conflagration of hate that threatens to destroy democracy. I doubt many recognize much less accept their culpability. Pragmatism should rule the day in politics and governing.
I agree. Politics is the art of the possible.
I am also furious with those types who, even after death star became the occupant of the WH, held on to their views about HRC. They are still bleating unfortunately, as I reported here about the person complaining that the Elect a D in the new district six in Oregon has Joe (and Kamala) on the top of the page. We need to have a candidate that appeals to more than just Bernie Bros. When I read a letter like today's, I am very glad to be older and have no direct descendants.
I never liked either Clinton or voted for either - in a primary. I campaigned for both in general elections. After caucusing for Sanders, I worked my heart out volunteering for Hillary almost full time for months leading up to election day. My listening to voters convinced me early on that she might lose. People either wouldn't voter for her or believed her predicted win didn't need their vote.
I could go one on one with any Trumpster, Bro, or Dirtbag about the Clintons' personal defects and degradation of the Democratic party. Hillary's dismissing Dean's 50 state strategy, her building bridges to nowhere in Texas instead of mending fences in Wisconsin ... and her 'Trump can't win, I can't lose' arrogance ... all contributed to Trump's win.
Among my activist acquaintances, the majority of Sanders supporters voted and volunteered for Clinton. Just as in 2020 we who'd supported Warren worked to elect Biden.
I don't blame Sanders although I am glad he was more full throated for Biden than for Clinton. Jill Stein is another story but her disgruntled supporters were just as counterproductive.
She was not my first choice and I am aware of her failings, but once she was the candidate, we had choice between her who would have listened to her intelligence reports, not denied COVID, kissed Putin's ass, etc. What we got was a egomaniac dunce who has no redeeming human characteristics, a pile of corruption, and a absolute threat to our democracy. Biden is president now and some these people are still complaining about him instead of touting what has been accomplished. I am not active in terms of being out there, but we did attend one Marion County D meeting where a couple of egos who claimed to be progressive were trying to take over. I felt sorry for their candidate for whatever who was being used big time. Then they tried an underhanded maneuver and insulted someone who had slogged for years in the trenches to make the world a better place and elect Ds. I sat here with a person who, after death star had been elected, did not acknowledge what we had. He even tried to mansplain about US foreign policy. I am a history major, took a whole course on American foreign policy, keep up with current events, and am well aware of of our foreign policy foolishness. He and his mother listened to what his brother described as slit your wrist radio. Fundamentalism in religion and/or politics does not sit well with me.
In the latest on this, I tried to explain to someone that Biden and Harris now lead the party and it would no good to complain that their pictures were at the top of a group page created by someone else. So I heard the word toxic and 7 people upvoted her comment because they felt 'safe' to do so. I don't know what the hell that means. She should know who the enemy is because she is often out videoing the local party of death gatherings, Proud Boys, and religious nuts who took over a large city park all summer. I support her in this, but electing someone in our newly created district requires something beyond purity.
Hope grand daughters will be formidable advocates for sanity. I worry about their world…
I hope so too. I really am sorry about what young people have to face in this and so many other matters. I do have nieces, nephews, greats and great greats. Most of them are already in the underclass and having children seems to be what they do best.
I'm in the same boat; no direct descendants. BUT: my nephew is one sharp man, and really is doing the political work. My four nieces are all doing well; one is raising two smart, independent girls, one is chugging along running day care and an etsy store, one is (very nearly) a newly minted Captain for Horizon Air, and the fourth is doing post baccalaureate clinical research and applying for graduate school (she is also politically involved).
I'm also sad that Pete DeFazio is retiring; he makes a good point that at 75 it's "time to go", it is just that I hope this doesn't give Alek Skarlatos his seat. Pete seems to have confidence in the democratic majority in his district, but I am worried.
Val Hoyle is running for his seat. Only two of my nephews and their children do well. One is in Eugene and his lady is the manager of the Eugene Symphony. So he's getting an education in classical music which we love. On the other side in the midwest, most of them rail against what they don't understand. I caught one's wife posting Q nonsense. I try to explain. I have no hope for them.
Good to know you’ve got a Eugene connection! I have several friends who are symphony musicians (2 well enough to break bread with)
Then they will know Lindsay and possibly David. He works in a used record place. No idea what it is called.
House of Records, I bet.
The chickens have come home to roost, The republican long game paid off.
1. No. That was intentional.
2. No doubt whatsoever. The stench is real.
3. I have the utmost distain for those "Bernie Bros", or the "Green Party" voters, who either failed to vote or voted for the third party candidate. I also hold in contempt those (formerly) reasonable Republicans who "held their nose and voted for tRump".
I had to explain to one of my LMTs why he had been conned by the Green Party Candidate whose name I am blocking out I guess because I can't remember it right now.
I wish I could give 100 thumbs up for point #3!
Assault with a deadly weapon. Add it to his tntc other crimes.
tntc = too numerous to count? Maybe just spell it out.
Yes
come 2024 there may be the same issue.. decide between orange clown (or his clone) or old senile Biden.. I will abstain.
You don't see the problem. You have joined it. It doesn't matter if the Democrats nominate my dog to run against TFG. By not voting, you will be voting for the monster.
I may share some concerns about Joe Biden. But if you don't see the value of the direction he has taken us in, then I wonder what your values are?
Biden has reversed an enormous amount of the damage done by TFG simply through executive orders. His cabinet is diverse. He has shepherded the most powerful batch of legislation in decades and has saved thousands if not millions of lives. He ended a stupid war. He is resuming alliances. He is not giving campaign info (and who knows what else at Helsinki) to Putin.
I'll forgive Biden a stumbled sentence. He doesn't have to talk and walk like George Clooney for me. I did not vote for Joe in the primary. But he has not disappointed me.
To "abstain" is to assist in the destruction of our democracy.
When people announce not voting I just cut them lose. We need to focus on the people who are voters or may vote or need help with the voting process.
Ignorance is proud these days, I ditch it too
And we don't know who the candidate will be. I do not make predictions this far out. We have a lot of work to do here and now.
Exactly
Agreed, and even sometimes I forget Biden was born with a stutter….
We did not vote for Biden to be a movie star or great orator. We voted for him to get things done. This isn’t a reality tv show where you make your decisions based on the cuts the producers decide you will see. The right wing only pick little clips to make Biden look bad. Watch a press conference and pay attention to their gotcha questions. Notice how they hate that Jill Biden is such an honest caring person the edit videos to make her look bad or denigrate her doctorate. These are the very same people who defended Trump for every one of his senile, sick and twisted moments including him getting in a car with Covid to wave to his fans.
You make these statements without ever stating a single thing that Biden has done to make anyone think he is senile. My grandfather was sharp as a tack at 95 even though he had heart problems.
Pretending your statement has anything worthwhile and posting it makes me wonder why you are here. Not voting is a vote against democracy. Not voting and coming out here to denigrate the candidates shows you are willing to let every issue and every candidate pass or win because of some flimsy name calling.
1000 likes Sharon😎
I don't recognize this "hbaeurele" from any prior dayd and I suspect David Carroll took a new name? This group tends to just ignore DC and spoil his fun! Awfully hard to be a landline heavy breather on this forum!!
I find the difference in age between tfg and Biden--what is it? 4 years?--to be laughable to saddle Biden with the "old". And while I don't think Biden is at all "senile" I will take that over full-blown psychosis of the orange one.
I end with that. Don't feed the troll.
At 88 I am both tacky and sharp as a tack. Though my sustained energy is less than in yesteryear, my comprehension of what is important has sharpened and I have a greater ability to compromise in order to find a solution rather than some intractable confrontation. Biden, as a relative youngster, suits me just fine. By contrast, Trump flunked at birth and has deteriorated even more in recent years.
Yes you are. Sharper than many half your age and your expense and wisdom you share here is invaluable.
*experience, not expense.
Biden is indeed old.
However, he shows no independent evidence of being senile. He does show evidence, at times, of being a long time speech impaired adult with a stutter.
Fox News has taken that speech impediment trait and turned it against Biden with the word "senile".
Don't buy into the lie that Biden is senile. He is not.
He has accomplished much to much to be, objectively, referred to as senile.
The person who approximates senile more is Trump. Clearly, Trump's thinking capacity, which was always limited, is severly compromised at this time.
Mike S, I have added you to my list of names to look for as you often post astute comments, as is this one is. That being said, I highly suspect that this "commenter" is David Carroll who is a long term troll here, don't waste your intelligence on him. I skim past his posts, don't even read them but have noticed that pretty much everyone ignores him now. I suggest doing the same with his latest iteration.
Thanks Miselle. I am not familiar with David Carroll but will look around.
I agree. TFG has shown signs of senility for quite a while. Anyone remember the stumbling ramp walk and the inability to hold a glass? What about the word salads he dishes up? Remember that doctored hurricane map? LOL! We are no longer subjected to the rantings of a crazed maniac who could not spell on Twitter, thank goodness. But I remember when. Whatever he has snorted or sniffed or taken in pill form has, by now, severely affected whatever remains of brain cells (assuming there were many functioning to begin with.) It is laughable to compare him with the brainpower and ability of our president to utter a speech without having to read it (poorly) off Sharpie notes written on gigantic cards. Biden is in the business of governing and juggling many, massive challenges. All TFG ever did was eat and play golf and watch TV and break things. Other than the golf, he spent his four years as much in assisted living as any person who has dementia and lives with incontinence.
There is a video of TFG being interviewed by Larry King in the late '90s. The difference between 45 then and now is amazing. Back then he was totally coherent, articulate, and how a lot of left wing views--on abortion and family planning, among other things. Yeah, he's definitely senile. (my understanding is the stumbling ramp walk and inability to hold a glass were likely ministrokes.)
Ellen, I love your image of Trump spending four years using the voluminous services and extensive support staff of the White House as his personal, single-patient nursing home/psychiatric inpatient facility.
I don't know where you're getting the impression that Biden is senile. He most certainly is doing a superb job in extremely trying circumstances--a razor thin majority in the House, a majority only because the VP can cast the deciding vote in the Senate, two extremely recalcitrant Democratic senators (I'm referring to Manchin and Sinema in case that's not obvious to you), and Mitch McConnell, whose measure can be inferred by the fact that his three daughters are estranged from him, running the GOPers in the Senate with an iron hand.
It is obvious from reading just slightly deeply in the better newspapers that Biden is in command of all of his faculties. He and Nancy Pelosi inspire me that one can continue to be effective as one approaches, and passes 80 years.
Biden doesn’t serve alone he comes with an EXTREMELY competent administration, which is the opposite of the club of thieves. Whatever, you do you, and be proud you destroyed the world, we’ll all know who did it.
Every time you don't vote, you make the vote of the opposition more powerful. Your vote counts! By abstaining you give in to the bullies and lose your voice.
That message needs to be spread far and wide, Pam! Non-voters just give autocrats more power. Better to vote for the least worst than not at all.
If that is how you refer to President of the United States Biden then perhaps it is best you refrain from participating in elections. I never understand someone's need to announce not voting. Here is some perspective. There are millions and millions and millions of voters. No worries. We are fine.
I respectfully disagree (about the number of voters) , Barbara. As the last two elections showed, every vote counts, especially in the battleground states. People like "hbauerle" are part of the reason that the Orange Asscactus won in 2016.
With due respect. My point is let's not get taken hostage by those who are throwing the "I am not going to vote" stuff around. Frankly I think it is an attention getting ruse.
Let's move on to working where the voters need information, registering to vote and getting to the polls.
And thank you for the "respectfully disagree" part.
"Senile"? What is your evidence for this diagnosis?
FWIW: se·nile /ˈsēˌnīl,ˈsenīl/
adjective - (of a person) having or showing the weaknesses or diseases of old age, especially a loss of mental faculties.
Good Lord, heaven help us
In which case you will get the (right wing) government you deserve, and likely another Supreme Court Justice or two. This is on you as well, IMHO.
or the democrats could nominate someone else that will appeal to the masses.. strange concept I know...
Oh for crying out loud, grow up! Either you're a bot or just plain ridiculous. Under incredibly difficult obstacles, Biden has done an amazing job getting results that work for all Americans. And, he has done so with grace, compassion, and leadership in putting together an administration that doesn't make us gag every morning! If you had any intellectual ability to assimilate real information and facts you'd understand that.
My comment was for hbaeuerle.
Calling me stupid is rather something i associates with Trump supporters but hey get used to losing with Biden.. maybe thats his new campaign slogan? losin’ with Biden
Bernie would have lost to the Orange Asscactus. Period. His views are NOT in line with those of the majority of American voters. Would Bernie have flipped Arizona? Georgia? I think not. But, hey, you do you. Oh, and FYI, Biden BEAT TFG in November of 2020. So, your comment about "losin' with Biden" is just plain silly.
I stand by my original statement. The loss by Hillary Clinton to TFG in 2016 is every bit as much on you as it is on the Orange Asscactus' cultish supporters. You own it.
Troll, if you want to be taken seriously, you should hone up on your English. " i associates?"
The reason Biden was elected was because he appealed to the masses. He was ahead of every other candidate in the primaries. How can you not understand that? Oh, but you do. Take you glib, hate filled rhetoric and go to one of the social media sites that tolerate them. People on this forum care about facts and actions to get things done.
Don't feed the troll. You can tell he's getting his ya-yas out over this. Amazing how desperate some people are to get a rise out of people.
We will have to live with whoever gets the nomination, so again, if you "sit out" 2024 because you're sulking over the fact that your chosen candidate didn't get the nomination, our slide into reactionaryism is as much on you as it is on the Republicans. Oh, and one other thing: If your candidate doesn't get enough votes to get the nomination, maybe--just maybe--your candidate ISN'T someone who will "appeal to the masses". We all live to a degree in echo chambers of like-minded thinkers, but the fact of the matter is that not everyone agrees with you.
A wise person once said to me that Democracy is something we have to always maintain.
You’re colorblind and cannot see that he did appeal to the masses. 80 million plus. You want someone who appeals to you but you can’t admit that
If you slide out of the birth canal in 1950 and you are female, you are constantly barraged by life showing up where you have very few options for affecting change. Your first kiss and what might have been your first husband, is blown out of the sky over Viet Nam (or was it really Cambodia?) and from there life is a series of challenges when you can do little to affect change. It appears to me that currently, retaining the filibuster is more important than finding a remedy for minority rule. Retaining the filibuster is more important than finding a path to restore voting rights for all people. Retaining gerrymandering means that Republicans will “govern” from the standpoint of being a minority. The Supremes were hijacked by Mitch McConnell which means they will finally get total control over women’s bodies. How is it that McConnell is not called out for court packing? Why can’t the Democrats add three progressive thinking Judges to the court? My life is all about the inability to affect change, yet I somehow cannot stop trying.
"My life is all about the inability to affect change, yet I somehow cannot stop trying." I'm almost 70 and am thinking about what my life would be if, back then in the '70s - two young girls, hardly any money, and a fling (with birth control) that sent me to a Manhattan abortion clinic. No-one shamed me; just kindness; no judgement. Thank g-d for Roe vs. Wade.
Carla, your final sentence brought Dylan Thomas' words to me: "Do not go gentle into that good night, Rage, rage against the dying of the light." We have to rage against the dying of our democracy.
Well said. Thank you for that. I'm not surprised to learn you're a pastor.
That sounds defeatist. Surely you will join the cause of " raging against the dying of the light."
To some extent at least, one can choose to rage or to be frustrated, probably partly depending on one's circumstances. I hope you can turn that frustration into rage, or something more productive.
Who is going to adopt the microcephaly/anencephaly baby, or baby that requires multiple heart surgeries? The anatomy scan is done at 20 weeks. It’s not accurate at 15 weeks. If it’s ruled that life begins at conception, then women should start earning child tax credits upon a PPT (positive pregnancy test). And men should start paying child support. Women can garnish back pay for child support if paternity tests are required. Prenatal care and delivery coverage. Postpartum care and lactation support. Formula. We’re all in this together. It takes two to make a baby.
I don’t know what pivots dems and independents can do, but I feel like they need to be a bit more nimble with these chips away at democracy. I’m not a fan of incentivizing childbirth either, or using abortion as a quick fix for birth control as the other extreme. But 15 weeks is too soon.
Speaking of right to life, how about some gun control reforms so our kids aren’t shot to death at school? What about their right to life? As a mom with school-age kids who moved recently, when picking schools, I specifically thought about which schools have the highest safety likelihood. Things are very different now than when I was in school. Twitter has some decent info on the Michigan shooting, but kids and young journalists are posting on TikTok, with a more granular flare. There are some interesting videos there with additional details of events leading up to the shooting, including letters sent out by the principal about a week apart dispelling any rumors of safety risks, a severed deer’s head placed in the school courtyard, graffiti on the school, weird stuff on his social media accounts, that students took video during the event saying that he (the shooter) actually followed through with it. Some students knew or had a big suspicion the day of and stayed home from school that day. It is heartbreaking. I hope my children will never experience the horror these kids went through. I hope as a parent, I never have to get that text or phone call. These school shootings are uniquely a US problem.
"And men should start paying child support."
Actually, for any unwanted pregnancy the father should be REQUIRED to raise the child, alone.
This would immediately result in abortion being legal from the moment a women tells the furture father of the pregnancy.
So, just write a law that if the WOMAN does not want the baby the FATHER MUST raise the kid.
In today's world of DNA this is a very, very enforcable approach.
Both people participated in inception equally. So, if the woman does NOT want to participate in child raising, force the kid on the Dad and put him in jail if he does not agree immediately to take on all child raising responsibility.
Suddenly, abortion will be legal forever.
This reminds me of the old saying - If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
So true. I've also said that if men bore children, they would claim that no woman could stand the pain.
While it may seem a way to get men more interested in supporting abortion rights, I am fearful that the parties such legislation would most punish are the unwanted children impacted by this suggestion. I realize that it may have been a bit of intended irony or perhaps satire intentions that provoked this suggestion. I feel strongly the best approach is to support women's reproductive rights.
Many states require men to pay child support. My daughter never went after it when my grandson was a baby but when she’d died and he was 16 I used the DHS in Arizona to go after him. They filed all the paperwork and we only had to go to court. They didn’t go back previous to her death but he was required to pay $750 a month for the last 2 years. Arizona took this money directly from him and gave it in an EBT card every month. I think California does the same. There was no cost to us and we had legal representation the entire way.
I'm sorry for your loss, Sharon. I admire your resolve to advocate for your grandson.
I think women in states that deny them an abortion should name one of their congressmen as the father of their child. Make them prove its not theirs. Also, why do so many assume that women forced to have a baby are going to keep them? Where's the money for foster care or orphanages coming from?
Stephen King could make a fortune on a new book: Nobody's Child. It could go something like this - six people in robes make a ruling that all babies must be born, regardless of the circumstances, so in 2022, several hundreds of thousands of newborns, conceived by incest and rape, were delivered in boxes to the six. Those who were female were all tagged with the name "Amy" and the males were all tagged "Coney." The mothers were all named "Mama" and the dads were named accordingly as "unknown rapist" "grandfather" "uncle" "brother", etc. The true mothers were never identified, since most of these births did not occur in hospitals. The unidentified mothers simply dropped off the box with the babe inside and disappeared into the anonymity of society. The six robed people were thus left in charge of thousands of unidentified newborns. They then began to traffic in them and were investigated by the DOJ and arrested by the FBI.
Doesn't this sound like a winner? I could just envision the look on Ms Amy's face when her doorbell rings one morning and she finds herself facing hundreds of crying infants in boxes, all named for her. LOL! It's a sick idea, but Stephen King could make it fly.
I believe all states have laws that presume parental rights, and a person has to take a series of affirmative steps in legal proceedings to relinquish one's parental rights to a child. Every state has child protection agencies that include administration of various agencies and organizations for foster care--no more orphanages, per se.
Perfect strategy. Perfect.
Are there still orphanages or are they immediately sent to foster care? That money is coming from *gasp* our taxes and the GOP would call it socialism. My father was a foster child during the war when my grandmother couldn’t care for him. There was no money paid to the parents then. I don’t know the exact years but he was born in 1929.
Tough times in America then, after 10 years of Republican Paaarty.
My father-in-law came from a foster care background; his mom was crazy and absent, his dad left the 4 kids (two older sisters and one younger sister for him) alone. The state stepped in; the youngest girl went with a family member, the older two girls went to one family and my father-in-law to another (he was born in 1935). He was reunited with his family in the late 1940's in Crescent City, CA. He does not speak fondly of that time, and his two older sisters were never very stable as adults.
My father rarely spoke about being raised in someone else’s home. In my early teens I learned that a good sized part of my family considered aunts, uncles and cousins were actually from his foster family so it couldn’t be too bad. I also learned many deep, dark secrets about who my biological grandfather was verses the vague father my dad would talk about who was not in the picture. I had always had my bio grandfather because they married when he was 10. When I divorced I took his last name instead of my maiden name and it thrilled him.
I don't know....probably not.....which is what begs the question.
During WWII, the some of the kids in England got sent to live with friends outside the cities. So I'm sure that was happening in the US too. My guess is your dad's case was because of the depression or the dust bowl.
Maybe. There’s a lot of weird family history and everything was always a secret. No one ever wanted to tell the whole story and I had trouble finding stuff in the National Archives.
So if a woman is raped, impregnated and doesn't want to keep the child, the child should be handed over to the father to raise?
Aye, that is not exactly what I was thinking, but, basically, in the high probability case of not being raped (most births are not from rape), if the woman does not want the child, force the man to come to the table and raise the kid or significantly participate in raising the kid.
The reason men want to outlaw abortion is they want to force women to raise them.
IF men were required to raise the kids, abortion would be instantly made legal.
If men were required to raise their kids, there would be many more physically, emotionally, and/or sexually abused kids--and dead kids.
Ellie,
This might be true. I don't really know. I spent a huge effort and time raising my own two kids (their Mom travelled a lot) and I hope they don't feel abused and certainly they were never dead or sexually abused.
Maybe when I limited my son's time on that ridiculous XBox he felt abused, I don't know, and, I don't care. I felt he should be reading a good book or doing his homework instead.
Of course there are great dads and the world needs more like you, Mike! Sadly, there is a bigger picture out there.
Forcing parenthood on people of either gender is a bad set up for children who are dependent on adults to care for them. The risk of child abuse and neglect goes up in proportion to the caregiver’s lack of emotional bonding with the child, and is compounded by factors of race, poverty, substance abuse, and unresolved trauma.
Child protection agencies are putting more money and effort into Project Fatherhood programs to nurture fathers’ involvement and caring for their children. It’s not simple.
I concur with Ally.
Without putting words into Ellie's mouth, I have some suspicions about where she's coming from. Overwhelmingly, child abuse (physical and sexual) is perpetrated by men. Sometimes the biological father, sometimes a male partner of the biological mother. (This is not to say that women do not engage in these activities; the most horrific child abuse case of my career was a woman who starved and beat her oldest daughter to death. The evidence in that case was so overwhelming that she pled guilty to Intentional Murder of a Child leaving only the penalty phase of her trial to be adjudicated. Oregon now has three stellar examples of lesbian couples that kill their kids with one that broke in the news this week.)
There are a lot of people who are not destined to be good parents, be it from nature (who they are as people), nurture (what they grew up with), or lacking in the mental/emotional capacity to be parents. Admittedly, as a 28 year cop, I got to see a lot of this, and what it comes down to in my unstudied but observed opinion is a combination of poverty, prior abuse, and a paradigm in our culture that gives men and women "different" responsibilities with respect to almost everything.
I love this idea!
You wrote: "If it’s ruled that life begins at conception, then women should start earning child tax credits upon a PPT (positive pregnancy test). And men should start paying child support. Women can garnish back pay for child support if paternity tests are required. Prenatal care and delivery coverage. Postpartum care and lactation support. Formula. We’re all in this together. It takes two to make a baby."
YES!
When our inhumane governor denied Medicaid to our neediest, I advocated for all those who got kicked out of nursing homes to be taken in their wheelchairs and left on Abbot's front lawn. His decision. His responsibility.
So if Ms Barrett (I refuse to grant her the title of "justice") and her partners in crime want to toss RvW because all those unwanted babies can be "adopted," I suggest that those infants be dropped off in their bassinets on the FRONT LAWNS of those who made the decision. Their decision. Their responsibility. Think of it. Tens of thousands of crying infants on the front lawns of six robed wannabe dictators.
I love your imagery here. I think that perhaps a suitable name for that person should be "judge Three Names" (no typo, judge here is a job title, not an honorific as Judge is.)
If the baby is "white, blonde, blue-eyed, and healthy" there is no problem finding adoptive parents. Anything else, not so much. Will states be abler to dictate sterilization for Black or Brown women without husbands or with "too many" kids?
If they overturn Roe vs Wade, will the courts also overturn Brown vs Board of Education?
Soon there will be 38 states calling for a Constitutional Convention. Welcome to Gilead.
Question: Do the corporate Dems care or are they onside with the destruction of American Democracy?
“If the baby is "white, blonde, blue-eyed, and healthy" there is no problem finding adoptive parents. “
So true and $$$$$, often going to those religiously-affiliated adoption agencies.
I’m horrified at the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned and the very real possibility of many more infants, of any race, being available for adoption.
As an adoptee, I can tell you it is just not normal being separated from your origins.
Adoptees have a significantly higher rate of mental illness, suicide and addiction.
And so many of those “open adoptions” often become not so open…
Trojan horses are on the inside
I seem to recall some laws that indicated that willfully spreading diseases to people unaware of your condition (HIV for example) was subject to criminal prosecution for endangering the lives of others
This despicable behavior will undoubtably be excused by despicable people
The sadness caused in this acceptance by some of my countrymen is becoming heavy
You’re forgetting about all the double standards in place allowing Wealthy, Holders of influential position, Republicans, Men, Whites, Christians to get away with things which Low / Middle Income, Non-influential position holder, Democrats, Women, BIPOC, and non-Christian’s (particularly Muslims) would be held to a considerably higher standard.
A heavier burden than anything else in my life, and I carry many
This is not normal and we should not normalize or accept this standard of behavior.
"[Rep. Liz Cheney] said: '[Trump] has recently suggested that he wants to debate members of this committee.' The committee’s investigation 'is not a game,' Cheney said. 'Any communications Mr. Trump has with this committee will be under oath and if he persists in lying then, he will be accountable under the laws of this great nation, and subject to criminal penalties for every false word he speaks.'"
May the Force make this true!
I feel it is important to recognize the linkage between Republican male legislators' suppression of women's reproductive rights and their opposition to enacting paid family leave legislation. Here is the text of my own Letter to the Editor of our local newspaper on this:
The U.S. is way behind the curve on paid family leave -
In the SCOTUS oral arguments on Mississippi’s restrictive abortion law, Mississippi’s lawyers made the argument that “women have progressed enough economically since the1970s” to make abortion unnecessary. This statement in support of a restrictive new law on abortion rights constitutionally protected for almost 50 years and passed overwhelmingly by Republican male lawmakers is not supported by the realities of U.S. paid family leave policies.
It is important to understand the economic impact on women of restrictive abortion rights. Pregnancies often result in women losing employment for a variety of reasons, many health-related. Often that loss is not transitory. Additionally, after returning to the workplace women find child-rearing responsibilities are often career limiting. This is compounded by the U.S. being way, way behind the curve on paid family leave policies. The U.S. is one of only 7 countries worldwide that does not presently offer some form of paid maternity leave. Of those 7, the U.S. is by far the largest. The other six are Papua New Guinea and several small Pacific island nations. The average length of maternity leave for those countries offering this benefit is 29 weeks. Even with the endangered 4 weeks of paid family leave in the new Democratic proposed Build Back Better Act, of the 186 countries that offer paid leave for new mothers, only one, Eswatini (once called Swaziland), offers fewer than four weeks. Of the 174 countries that offer paid leave for a personal health problem, just 26 offer four weeks or fewer, according to data from the World Policy Analysis Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/25/upshot/paid-leave-democrats.html
The restrictive abortion rights legislation being passed in states like Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and other states is being passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures overwhelmingly dominated by male Republican representatives. Let us be clear that these are the same party’s male federal legislators standing in the way of advancing paid family leave legislation.
Women’s reproductive rights are an economic justice issue and Republican men are not on the side of women on this issue.
Be informed and support economic justice for women and women’s reproductive rights.
As Robert Hubbell writes:
"Here are two actions you can take to pressure the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the constitutional rights recognized in Roe v. Wade.
...The current reactionary majority could be relegated to a permanent minority by enlarging the Court. That would be a bleak future for Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts.
Though expanding the Court may be a longshot, the threat of expansion was enough to chasten a reactionary majority on the Supreme Court in 1937. The Senate has a bill on its docket that would increase the size of the Court to thirteen. Call Chuck Schumer and your Senators (here) urging them to co-sponsor and pass the Judiciary Act (S.1141). Supreme Court Justices do not live in a vacuum. The media will report a groundswell of support for enlarging the Court. Even if it does not happen immediately, the threat of expansion may be enough to slow or stop the reactionary majority’s religious and social agenda.
Second, we can pressure Congress to pass legislation to codify the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade. Call your Senators (here) and urge them to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 (S.1975). You can also use an automated text-bot that will generate a letter from you to your U.S. Senators by texting SIGN PRRBTG to 50409. Please share this information with friends, family, and social media followers. Also, subscribe to Chop Wood, Carry Water by Jessica Craven for daily updates on actions you can take to help preserve democracy."
https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/todays-edition-action-steps
As a former nun in 1968, when women were advocating for abortion rights in shopping malls, prior to Roe, I had to learn that I could be opposed to abortion for myself, but at the same time must support a woman's right to choose abortion. Why? Because when abortion is illegal, rich women travel to where it's legal and poor women die.
I tried for months before 2016, both in person and on social media, to warn (especially liberal) democrats about what would happen to the courts, and therefore to individual rights, especially the right to choose abortion, if the republican won. (I cannot say his name.) But all I got in response was yammering about how awful Senator Clinton was and how wrong it was that Bernie didn't get the nomination.
So, what good can come of this? Could it be a lesson learned about how the various factions of democrats can hold their own views, but in the end need to come together to agree upon and work for what's possible and to protect what's in danger? That's my hope and prayer. And my motivation for asking, What is mine to do? Blessings.
I did the same thing; I told my friends that this was not as much a presidential election as it was an election over the Supreme Court. They didn't listen. Well, some did, and voted for tRump because of that.
Yes, the republicans, going back to Ronald Reagan, did a great job of recruiting the religious right by aligning with "pro-life" movement and riling up outrage about killing babies. And that would have been ok if they were advocating education and activism to promote their views. But what the republicans were really after was voters, and they got very good at turning one group against another, and blurring the line between supporting freedom of religious beliefs and working to force those beliefs on the rest of the country. We've got to have legislation that promotes voting rights so the majority "of the governed" have the power to protect individual rights. And we've got to get better at messaging...and find a powerful positive alternative to riling up outrage if we're going to recruit new voters.
"Trump’s contingent refused to wear masks despite rules at the venue to do so."
My first reaction to this disclosure was 'can we all say ... sociopath?' My second was 'can we all say ... banality of evil?'
Trump does not get to be Trump without a scaffolding of corruption propping him up - a myriad of people mindless of the harm they are perpetrating.
The Constitution essentially translates the religious dictum of The Golden Rule into civic life. Instead of creed, it gives us an agreed legal framework. Instead of belief, it gives us reasoned debate of empirical evidence.
The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. The Roberts Court is just going through the motions while allowing religious and racist prejudice to rule the day.
Republicans are running on irrationality and authoritarianism. Because they can. Because a sufficient number of Americans vote for them. And because a significant number cannot bring themselves to unite in opposition or even to vote at all.
Agreed. Trump seems to have met all the criteria for sociopathy in the DSM IV. The real "banality of evil" (great reference by the way) is the apathy still demonstrated by a sizeable chunk of the electorate. Have they no eyes? No brains? No hearts?
My impression, from 15 years of knocking on doors and phone banking to get out the vote, is that while some people truly have no time (for politics, to vote) many people simply have no interest. I think I've heard every 'reason' for not voting (if I vote then I'll be called for jury duty / oh my dear I'm really not smart enough to make such important decisions / if I vote then I'm part of the corruption) and then I hear another.
People are convinced that: my vote doesn't count; my vote won't be counted; all politicians are the same; and nothing ever changes. That they are is one of the most significant achievements of voter suppression - from the Right and the Left.
On the other hand, as I approach almost anybody on 'my turf' I've spoken to a lot of people who don't show up on any list. It was hard to know what to say to someone parked in the parking lot of a closed store - who turned out to have lost everything snd was living in her car; somehow, after Bill Clinton's / the DNC's shift to Wall Street, it was hard to sound convincing that 'Democrats care more and support more essential and emergency assistance (and of course, with Republicans saying No and then taking credit for the Dough.) It gets complicated.
It seems humans are a bit like ostriches. The uglier it gets the more we think burying our heads will make it go away. 🥲
I never had any trouble figuring out who the caring party was - in more than 60 years of paying attention. Even back when my favorite pol was Everett Dirksen, but then he was eclipsed by Barbara Jordan.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"The Republican party has unilaterally opted out of constitutional law. "
Trump showed them the way. It has been since 1890 since folks thought they could say and do anything they want and get away with it (and of course, they did for a long time).
But, after 40 years of Republican Policy and Bush's big lie on Iraq (and Afghanistan, right?, Osama Bin Laden was not there), everyone can see if you just lie big enough it all goes well.
"By risking others’ lives without their knowledge or consent, Trump claimed the right to dominate them."
If only Trump were as clever as the above sentence makes him appear.
In fact, Trump only thinks about himself, others never enter his mind. As a Covid positive person, he only thought of himself and, hence, continued to do whatever he wanted without regard or a single thought about anyone else.
He was probably hyped on steroids at the debate with Biden explaining his completely unhinged behavior.
At any rate, Trump will dominate anyone else, if they let him, not because that is a carefully constructed throught strategy, but, because he is only ever, ever thinking of one person.
Trump.
Usually, middle school helps train bullies to become people as other people stand up to the bully and whip him/them enough times to help him realize other people exist. (at least that was the civilizing method when I was a kid).
But, at the age of Middle School, I think, Trump was tossed into a fancy private school where he was treated with kid gloves. Other kids who would normally have helped him understand their existence were cautioned to let him be.
And, so, we now have a 12 year old bully ramming around the country thinking only of himself and doing whatever he wants and....
....let's be clear......not just getting by with it......being enabled to get by with it.
Same old, same old for Trump. Nobody will stand up. Our entire government was attacked at his command, to overthrow the duly elected result,
and
......Trump......remains.....at.....large.......eating...and...eating....and...golfing.....
growing ever fatter gorging on the land of the free and not very equal.
He only thinks of others if revenge is involved. Betcha Ginni Thomas has an enemies list that would make Nixon’s look like child’s play
The Texas anti-abortion vigilante injustice law made me livid. Taking away women's Constitutional right through the sleazy work-around of vigilantism was particularly vexing. Yes, the courts are allowing this law to continue while they "decide" whether it violates the Constitutional rights of 50% of the People. The proceedings in the Supreme Court on Dec. 1 again makes me see red. The sleazy arguments of this illegitimate Supreme Court after the Majority Leader McConnell blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland and then pushed three anti-Roe justices through confirmation under tfg's administration was in contempt of the Constitution in my view. I'll make separate points for a number of my arguments following this comment.
Fifth, Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas should recuse themselves from any decision about women's rights because they have been credibly accused of violating women's rights. In fact, I don't see that all these super majority male state legislatures should have any standing in the courts over women's rights.
Fourth, Justice Barrett talking about forcing women to take a fetus full term as no big deal because it wasn't a burden for the women to parent the child because you could just leave it on the steps of an adoption agency doesn't take in the account of the burden, even life-threatening, of nine months of pregnancy. She herself has seven children of which two are adopted and one has Down Syndrome. Why does the party of small government think they have the right to force the burden of pregnancy on anyone?
Barrett is the head Pharisee it seems, but she had to beat out Ginni Thomas (Clarence in disguise).
https://youtu.be/euBojmQbVkQ
Justice Barrett should recuse herself for claiming Safe Haven laws are the answer.
Just too personal for her ??
Safe Haven laws restored the option of one person legally abandoning a child and thus determining the rights of both parents…..yes, we time traveled back to the Baby Scoop Era.
Current adoption laws at least have some practices which “should”provide some domestic adoptees with any information about birth families and (even in states where records are still sealed, and kept sealed by right-leaning politicians. Texas comes to mind,Cathy)and also provide parents considering relinquishment with information, resources, and a way to change their minds in a certain time frame. Safe haven laws essentially legalize anonymous baby dumping with no records kept on the parents.
Rant over:)
First, the Supreme Court is now illegitimate and in Contempt of the Constitution by blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland and then pushing through Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett ignoring the argument they made for not giving the Garland nomination due process because it was a year away from an election. The stench as Justice Sotomayor so elegantly called with this court is very much indeed fouling the air.
And TGF appointees apparently lied under oath when asked about Roe v Wade. Do they get off Scott free for that too?
Third, the argument that the word "abortion" is not in the Constitution is a specious argument at best. Neither is the word "woman" in the Constitution. Women were not included in "All men are created equal". Women were essentially the property of their husbands. Even the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote doesn't use the word "woman" using the word "sex" instead. And, the only "right" given to women was the right to vote.
Second, this is a freedom of religion issue. There are many different religious views about when life begins or a soul enters the fetus, a potential human being. In Jewish religion, the fetus is a potential human being. The life of the pregnant woman, an actual human being, takes precedence over the potential being fetus. Here is an excellent article on this viewpoint. https://religionnews.com/2021/09/02/texass-abortion-ban-is-against-my-religion-as-a-rabbi-i-will-defy-it-if-necessary/ I like how Barbara Bush, in the biography of her written by Susan Page, put it that whatever happens to the fetus, God will take care of that soul.
Thank you for this! I didn’t know this and it makes so much good sense to me.
I yearn for the day when Donald J. Trump and his thugs no longer make the news either in print or in the electronic media. Trump is a toxic cancer that simply refuses to go into remission.
As to abortion: I have always considered this matter to be the decision of the woman. If a man is involved, I would hope that he would be consulted. Leaning on Scripture, life begins upon exit from the womb. Some chap said on the news last night that "killing a baby is against the Bible", because "the Bible says its so". Yeah? Really? We have grown a large population cursed with lots of opinion and very few brains to support those opinions. The United States thrives on ignorance, embellished by a less-than-integrity-drivien media. Frankly, I do not see this as any real or genuine concern about human life. I see this as an effort to furtter rule over a woman's body.
There is an excellent book that I recommend to the group here: "My Year of Living Biblically" by A.J. Jacobs. He is a hilarious writer but takes a serious, scholarly look at whatever he is investigating. In this year, he shows how incredibly difficult to "live Biblically" as the tenets are often contradictory. While he is Jewish, his story can apply to anyone who uses the bible as their guide. (And those Conservatives, esp the legalistic Baptists, would NOT like it!)
I entered graduate study at Seminary later in life, leaving a company as one of its vice presidents. During that graduate study I learned how much I did NOT know about Holy Scripture or that period in human history. Upon graduating Seminary, I realized how much LESS I know and how many more questions and curiosities remain unanswered and unexplained.
"Roe v. Wade was part of the dramatic expansion of civil rights after World War II, in which Republican-led Supreme Courts used the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution to enable the federal government to overrule discriminatory state laws and protect individuals’ civil rights. It was on these grounds that the court protected Black and Brown rights, interracial marriage, access to birth control, religious freedom, gay rights, and so on."
The thought that Roe v. Wade may be abolished is devastating. Once more, women will be deprived of their rights! Once again, men will gain control over women's bodies. Once again, women will be denied their inalienable birthright, authority, and freedom to act as their own moral agents! How dare these men (and one woman) strip us of our rights!!!
I would like to see the rule of law win in our democracy and that includes consequences for stolen SCOTUS seats. Perhaps those were technically not due to broken laws, however they were definitely due to poisonous shenanigans that need to be clearly defined and laws made to prevent a minority party from pulling such BS in the future that subverts us from becoming the nation we were all promised. Women must have agency over their own bodies. If not there will be hell to pay in untold ways.
Just reading Robert Hubbell’s blog for today and he nails my concerns in ways far beyond my abilities. “But make no mistake, this is a setback only, not a defeat.
Republicans plotted for a half a century to overturn Roe v. Wade. They created a legal society of conservative lawyers whose sole purpose was to churn out conservative judges who would chip away at the constitutional right to abortion. Republican candidates for president uniformly vowed to nominate justices for the Supreme Court only if they agreed to overrule Roe v. Wade. Republicans changed the size of the Court from nine to eight and then back to nine based on the whim of one man—Mitch McConnell—to ensure that Trump was able to appoint two illegitimate justices to the Court. They nominated and confirmed a justice one week before a presidential election, breaking all norms for judicial nominations and in violation of the special rule created by Mitch McConnell only four years earlier. Trump’s Supreme Court nominees lied to individual Senators and the Senate Judiciary Committee when questioned about their views of Roe v. Wade. And, finally, Republicans are willing to forever destroy the legitimacy of the Supreme Court by bending to the will of a religious minority.
The shameful Republican campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade was based on deceit, betrayal, and dark money. There is nothing in what Republicans have done that is worthy of emulation—except for their single-minded focus for a half a century on achieving their objective. If they can do that, we can, too. But we can do so better, and faster. Congress can pass legislation setting uniform standards regarding the availability of abortions. And Democrats can enlarge the Court to break the stranglehold of the reactionary supermajority created by the appointment of three justices who lied to Congress about their intentions.
But everything that Democrats can do is dependent on retaining control of the House, expanding the margin of control in the Senate, and retaining control of the presidency. The imminent abrogation of a settled constitutional right should be enough to shake Democrats out of their “business as usual slumber” that seems to have becalmed the fervor that defeated Trump and flipped the Senate in 2020.
The demise of Roe v. Wade should be enough to mobilize millions of young voters whose most personal reproductive decisions will be controlled by religious zealots in state legislatures. But if it is not, there is a somber reality that we must accept: It will get worse. Much. The unbounded reactionary majority on the Court will not stop until it has turned back the clock on civil rights and civil liberties by a century. Any claim of infringement of religion—no matter how attenuated or frivolous—will be sufficient to overturn state and federal legislation. Regulation of firearms will become constitutionally impermissible. And a bedrock judicial principle that is the basis of every civil right protected by the Court of over the last seventy years in in danger. If it falls—and it might—then decisions guaranteeing the right to equal education, to purchase contraception, and to marry someone of a different race or of the same sex are all at risk.” Grand Slam ❤️:
https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/todays-edition-the-tipping-point
Well said, and thank you.
Thank you for sharing this.
I remember watching that debate and thinking that it really looked like Trump was trying to spread germs. Regardless of the fact that he is a blowhard, he is not usually as expressive and vociferous as he was that night. It was weird, weirder than usual.
We knew Trump was a narcissistic sociopath. But willfully spreading a deadly disease during a pandemic is, in my mind, attempted murder. And those who didn't try to stop him or didn't resign in protest are accomplices. He's our first evil-to-the-core president, and he's not done trying to destroy the nation. In a sense, he is like a deadly virus, one that infects people with hate, rage, and immorality. There's no known cure.
Please read this "Today's Edition" by Robert Hubbell. It is an excellent followup to Heather's letter of today. It supports all that she has said about the court. And it includes a path to re-establishing democracy. https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/todays-edition-the-tipping-point