In 1985, President Ronald Reagan’s team made a conscious effort to bring evangelicals and social conservatives into the voting base of the Republican Party.
It seemed that Republicans were ready to take over at least the House or Senate or maybe both in the mid-terms to more fully shut down the Biden Administration’s attempts to govern and further rig the 2024 vote. But in the wake of the Putin wing’s resistance to defending the U.S. and the world against fascist atrocities, this stacked SCOTUS over-reach may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Many columnists are recognizing the horror of overturning Roe and its wider implications. If the Republican Party has its way, we will no longer be “one nation.” Each state will make its own laws in a party line that will make us a confederacy of Red versus Blue. People will flee their states for states supporting their political orientation and will only be able to hope that the other party doesn’t prevail after they have relocated, because there will be few federal norms that bind us under the rule of law. We can hope that the dog HAS caught the car and will suffer the consequences. Let’s do better than hope and get out the vote of the majority of us!
Hoping your observation becomes reality, perhaps what was once the moderate wing of the GOP will awaken from its deep sleep and rid the party of the zealots that they have allowed to take control of their party.
Mike In Schindler’s List, Schindler, despite being a generally despicable individual, in rescuing over 1,000 Jews did a marvelous thing. Liz Cheney, who reflects much of her parents’ despicable heritage, has launched an anti-Trump crusade from her political base in staunchly Republican Wyoming.
I am uncertain whether Liz is being noble and courageous or whether she is playing her cards for a post-Trump Republican Party.
You left the door open, Arrow Man. That is a good thing. Stereotyping and scapegoating infect us all. I hope that your arrow provokes self-reflection. Defending with 'like father like son' is so easy to grab hold of.
I think Keith's alternative to Liz being noble and courageous is probably correct. However, she is one of the few Republicans who have done anything good, regardless of her motivations. She deserves credit for that.
Never in a million years would I have thought I would see Liz Cheney as a hero, but in the case of bringing Trump and the insurrectionists to possible justice, she is....
She is 100% rated by every gop org and has been anti choice and anti gay including her own sister! Nice thought for a movie but not in this environment
Liz admitted her mistake in voting against LGBTQ legislation and reconciled with her dad and gay sister But that doesn't really have much bearing on her stand on abortion.
Liz Cheney has taken her current stance in order to distance herself from the crazies currently in control of the right wing. I believe she's positioning herself for a run for the presidency in the future, preferably when the Trumpies are no longer dominant. I doubt that she'll do much to promote Democratic ideals. Don't forget the specter of her Dad.
Nancy I believe that Liz Cheney will be a credible presidential candidate just after the College of Cardinals elects me Pope (and I'm not Catholic--so far)
I think it will be quite some time before she is viewed as anything other than a traitor to the cause. It's going to take time to erase the stench of TFG. Whatever her motivations, I'll have to give her credit for being on the January 6 commission.
And the “zealot” J.D. Vance wins the Republican primary in Ohio.
“Addressing supporters in Cincinnati, Vance thanked Trump for his endorsement and attacked the media for highlighting his past criticism of the former president. “They wanted to write a story that this campaign would be the death of Donald Trump’s America First agenda,” Vance said. “It ain’t the death of the America First agenda.””
I do have a positive note about Republicans however. I live in Cincy and we were assaulted with political ads 24x7. One anti Vance ad (I think it was a PAC) listed Vance's earlier fealty violations against Trump which included this gem: "He even compared Trump to Hitler". BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AD BEING COMPARED TO HITLER IS A BAD THING! Someone tip off the NYT so they can flood Ohio with reporters scouring diners to profile kinder, gentler Republicans!
The purpose of the Constitution was to bind the individual states together into a common government. Federal law had to take precedent over state law or there would have been no common ground. A bunch of little states would have been picked off by the greater powers at the time. Welding themselves together under the Constitution made them safer the founders thought. The justices trot out originalism when it suits their purposes. Originalism is just legal bs. If the right to privacy does not exist, what happens to HIPPA protecting healthcare privacy? What happens to searches and seizures? What the hell is the “party of small government” ( yeah, right) doing trying to stand in people’s bedrooms, but they won’t try to regulate corporate behavior in boardroom? This is a hateful decision to hurt and punish women based on religious dogma and political ideology.
There was a wonderful scene in The West Wing in which Josh Lyman said to a gay (but closeted, of course) Republican congressman that he’s amused to see how the party wants to shrink government until its just small enough to fit in our bedrooms.
Jenn, you are absolutely correct that this decision is designed to punish women. In my minds eye it removes full citizenship from women, turning us into chattel and stripping us of the rights to make healthcare and quality of life decisions for ourselves. In other words, we woman are fit enough to work and pay taxes but must not have agency over our own bodies.
You bring up HIPPA. Many folks do not understand what HIPPA is and how it works. Here is an excerpt in re the HIPPA Privacy Rule and who/what it applies to Llink follows.
"HIPPA Privacy Rule
The Privacy Rule standards address the use and disclosure of individuals’ health information (known as “protected health information”) by entities subject to the Privacy Rule. These individuals and organizations are called “covered entities.” The Privacy Rule also contains standards for individuals’ rights to understand and control how their health information is used. A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to ensure that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public’s health and well-being. The Privacy Rule strikes a balance that permits important uses of information while protecting the privacy of people who seek care and healing."
Right. So *unless* and individual who had the abortion shares information publicly that she had an abortion, what information are these lawsuits being initiated with? They can bring a person to court, based on their observation of a woman entering a facility on suspicion of having had an abortion, but then how do they prove that she did indeed have 1) a pregnancy and 2) a therapeutic abortion without violating HIPAA?
Maybe she went in for a consult, or to do some provider education, or to paint a mural on their wall. Lying about that couldn't be any more egregious than lying in front of a legislative hearing to get onto the court, right?
Your questions/concerns are spot on. Basically, law enforcement is relying on "concerned" friends and family members ratting out other family members OR prosecution is being based on speculation/circumstantial evidence.
Hi, Daria! I've been interested in your perspective on this, since you live in a place where the highest court has "decriminalized" abortion as recently as last year (according to Wikipedia), leaving enforcement to the several Mexican states. Have you gotten any impression as to the effect that has had on the people there?
I haven't read all the comments above, but a glance implies that some people might be confusing the fundamental difference between Constitutional law and statutory law. Alito is advocating eliminating most or all of the rights that stem from the "penumbra" of the Fourteenth Amendment, rights that aren't specifically spelled out, but implied as being necessary for the named rights to have meaning.
I don't know what right HIPAA is based on (I'd have to read the statute), but if it's based on a federal "right of privacy," then it would be jeopardized by Alito's decision, because there is no such right expressly listed in the Constitution. If there is no such federal right, then, under the Tenth Amendment, the States can do as they please.
That's why you see commentators saying that this threatens to permit states to outlaw contraception, since this "penumbra" logic was used to justify the Court's decision to bar States from mucking with it. Whether Alito's decision would directly affect the Loving decision, which prohibited States from barring interracial marriage, would depend on how the intersection of race and privacy issues works out. Litigation looms, wicked lawyers rub their hands! The Court would have to revisit these issues, if it does at all, one Right at a time because Alito and his cadre will have severed the underpinnings of an entire class of settled law that dates back to WWII.
Dirk--I think you are quite correct about the implications of "devolving" federal laws back to the states, allowing a divide and conquer approach on any given hot-button issue. But your citing of possible Tenth Amendment-based threats to privacy issues raises a question I have rarely seen addressed in the flood of originalist hogwash: the Ninth Amendment very simply states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The notion that people have privacy rights beyond those specified in the Fourth Amendment, and that the content of and contexts for exercising those rights have changed since 1789, seems to me eminently defensible in con law. Even if true, this approach still leaves all the substantive due process expansions for "small government" types to contest and wail about. But at least we wouldn't have to go searching for penumbras.
[Add: I now see that others have brought up the 9th Amendment issue further down the thread. I would only add that "liberty" seems to me to definitely be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”]
Hi Dirk, Yes, each of the 31 states of México has the right to decide exceptions for abortion and whether to prosecute a woman or not. Right now abortion is still fairly restricted throughout the country, including Yucatán. However in February, "A Federal Judge granted the injunction against the regulation of the crime of abortion in the Yucatan Penal Code and against the life protection clause established in the state Constitution." Still, as the law stands in Yucatán abortion is "Illegal with exception for rape, maternal life, fetal defects, if abortion was accidental, or economic factors (if woman already has 3 children)."
It's interesting to me that the economic exception in Yucatán is tied to the number of children a woman has not whether or not she can provide for herself and even a single child adequately. The minimum per day wage in México is $172.87 MXN or the equivalent of $8.50 USD. The Méxican work week is 6 Days so one's supposed monthly legal minimum wage would be equivalent to $212.50 USD. I can guarantee you there are plenty of people, especially women, who do not make that wage and struggle mightily day in and day out to provide for their families. There are areas all throughout this state and country where families live in shacks cobbled together from shipping pallets, cardboard and tarps. No electricity. No running water. Minimal access to basic healthcare. These are the women who have zero access to reproductive healthcare as well. And there is rarely any way out of that situation for their children (despite the fact that education for all is a constitutional right in México).
So, what about abortion here. First and foremost it is not something generally talked about by women who are economically struggling and uneducated and/or rural. Theoretically speaking, birth control is absolutely legal and over the counter, no prescription is required, so one would think that contraception availability would address some of the issues. Not so. A woman's ability to acquire birth control depends on such factors as age, socio-economic status, and ethnicity, in other words, the counter person at the pharmacy decides who gets it and who doesn't. Dead serious. And, of course, that means the indigenous population is hardest hit There are serious attempts by Méxican feminist organizations to provide information, contraception and abortion support but the influence of the Catholic church, family and an individual woman's community generally have far more influence on their decision making process than a stranger.
The bottom line here is if you are educated and have the financial means you can get anything you want, including an abortion, on demand.
Let us not kid ourselves. HIPPA is about as private as my dog's arse, meaning everyone can see it but the dog. It was devised during GWB's administration to facilitate the flow of info so insurances and medical practitioners could do or not do as it best suited their profit motives. All it says is "you should not look at this information if you have nothing to do with the patient/client." That leaves a lot of room for clerks, lab assistants, medical professionals, insurers, et al to access whatever.
And they have legal exposure for doing so. Maybe it's time that some of the resources we pool get directed to supporting women, who's private medical information has been breached by anyone within the practice, etc, to sue that entity responsible for protecting the info. The reason HIPAA appears to have no teeth is that the states are not willing to do any enforcement, and individuals do not know how or have the resources to seek remediation.
I agree having been a psych administrator both pre-and-post HIPAA. Integrity fell on my shoulders and I took that role very seriously. What I saw others doing with confidential information, however, makes me cringe.
However, if the Republicans take the House and Senate, and trump wins in 2024, will there be a Federal law passed by Congress to outlaw abortion everywhere do you think?
I think that is the pipe dream of some. However, I'm guessing the outcry will be so loud, those weeny R pols will trip over their own feet trying to appease the majority of Americans. (Ex: "Republicans are all about personal freedom and privacy.") Just maybe there will be light shown on their facetious motivations for courting the religious right.
This current iteration of SCOTUS has been IGNORING the Federal Supremacy clause of the Constitution and keeps pushing to ship things back to the states so the ultra RW SCOTUS agenda is carried out. " SCOTUS is Nonpolitical"-hogwash!.
Holy cow, our thoughts are traveling on the same wavelength. I've had nearly identical thoughts in the last 24 hours. HIPAA, small government except when we're up in your bidness, inflicting misery on others, etc.
Yes, total hypocrisy in terms of "small government." The radical regressive right wing is beside itself with all the gains made by people who should either be barefoot and PG or out of sight. Here in the PNW in Washington and Oregon clinics are already preparing for lots of new patients. The governor's office is up for grabs here in Oregon. All the Ds would be OK and even the D running as an I. (She knew she had no shot as a D) The Rs are trying for the most part to sidestep this one. Their ads are about homelessness, crime, schools, mandates. I have no idea who will prevail on the R side and it might be close on the D side.
Yes, HIPPA crossed my mind as well. Why doesn't HIPPA (as long as we still have it....) make it impossible for anyone to learn that a woman has had an abortion?
Technically, HIPPA makes it impossible for anyone to learn a specific woman (name, Date of Birth, Medical Record #) is pregnant. Does anyone think that will be a deterrent?
Sadly, it's *theoretically* impossible. The prohibition on providing medical information w/o a patient's consent extends to information about what their medical issue is and what the treatment may be. And no, I don't think HIPPA will be a deterrent ...to determined data miners... or 'leaks'.
I don't think it's a good idea to write off ANY states. Many states have been "captured" by Republican politicians who do NOT represent the majority. We owe those folks the protection we have constructed through our federal government. It is fair to say that the Republicans do not have the "consent of the governed."
All those we know in SoCal have been fleeing to Prescott, AZ. It's the craziest thing...5 households in the past year. All Trumpers, highly educated, Evangelicals or very conservative Catholics. They believe we are in the end of times.
We True Blue folks, starting with LFAA students currently dwelling in super-sanguine states, ban together and find a spot, thinking Europe, and set up shop?!
Gary: As I posted yesterday, this makes it soberingly clear that all the rhetoric about "states' rights" is simply the Trojan Horse for Confederacy 2.0. It is the next turn of the screw. Just as the notion that the Texas legislature is free to legally encourage vigilantism by codifying bounties for citizens to sue each other for exercising a constitutionally-protected right offends basic jurisprudence, this brazen move to reverse long-standing precedent under the guise of "states' rights" portends some rough sledding for the Nation up ahead. Potential adversaries in China, Russia and elsewhere who wish us no good will delight in this self-inflicted wound that can only further unravel the national fabric. It is becoming eerily evident that this Court thinks each state gets to write its own rules on pretty much everything, and we know how that works out....W/r, cdl
Beyond "self inflicted" woulds, I'd postulate that the US seems to be engaging in conduct similar to a circular firing squad. There will be no survivors.
Funny initials story: For a time, when I went in service with my local law enforcement agency, we had to use our initials and badge number. Now, I know that the military (I don't know if you are Army or USMC) uses letters to denote such things...FUBAR comes to mind. We always referred to a person acting in a manner to be consistent with an anal orifice as an "Adam Henry", utilizing the common vulgar reference to hat part of the human anatomy.
We had a retired SPC 5 as a dispatcher, and I went into service as "Adam Adam Henry, 540" He about died laughing.
I had read this phrase a couple months ago over on Stonekettle Station; it roughly translates to "I got what I wanted and now I have no idea what to do next".
I have often wondered why the 100th Monkey Effect (evolution accommodates learning when repeated actions harm the species) doesn't seem to apply to dogs chasing cars.
Yes but the Red's gerrymandered control of what will be left of the Feds will ensure that the Blue States continue to make massive financial transfers to them......suckered by good intentions, political blindness and inertia. As Benjamin Disreali wrote, "Hope for the best, plan for the worst". The Dems have neglected their classic literature for far too long.....a new reading of Macchiaveli's "The Prince" might help them a little.
Ok Stuart, here’s the plan. Capitol: Washington DC, Maryland county, Virginia county, North Carolina county, Idaho county, Texas county, Florida county, etc. Oops no more states rights. Codes gone.
Morning, Gary. I’ve been waiting for Politics Girl (Leigh McGowan) to use a podcast to speak out on the bully dogs attack of public education. She did so this week. Validating. And our voices suddenly became more clear and peal like the Liberty Bell.
Not to mention the public hearings on 1/6 to be held in June. This has the appearance of being the moment in time when the lid blows off. The next 6-12 months might be seriously ugly. There’s a momentum building.
The Supreme Court justices knew “the dog was chasing the car” when several went to friendly forums and made speeches asserting their legal purity and complete lack of political affiliation in the fall. They wouldn’t have had such an agenda had the nation been slumbering. That wing of the court is shredded now. The Supreme Court’s reputation for probity has flown until those 6 justices have retired. And this moment will define their lives. One wonders how they slept last night.
Finally, the draft decision itself is, effectively, 95% of of the story. But the leak itself is not unimportant. This was not whistleblowing in any sense of that honorable word. This was a political cri de coeur, which in its own way reinforces how political the court has become. Either side could have done the leaking. Either way there was a political reason behind it. And it serves as further evidence that this Court is utterly broken.
This has been what SCOTUS has been working toward by their continually saying "Send it back to the states." IMHO, they have decided to IGNORE the Constitution's Federal Supremacy clause so their donors can do what they want, regardless of laws.
“We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” he wrote. Excuse Me?
Morning Lynell. Awful to say but.....With a political gift like this and the number of people that they should be able to get riled up enough to vote for them, if the Dems can't create an electoral landslide in November and dominate sufficiently both houses then they are not the party of the future. They are going to disappear under the waves. Resistence to the GOP autocracy will have to organize around them....and without them as they will not be a player.
That is a very true statement, Stuart. We have to hold our representatives feet over a fire and make certain they get the message that we’re mad and we aren’t gonna take it anymore! I know you wrote to Lynell, but thought I’d chime in too. :)
Let us form the reasonable hyptothesis that those 59% are city and suburban voters with some college education.
That leaves 41% in the rural areas to provide the votes necessary to keep a minority opinion in place after an election in which Gerrymandering insures the votes of those 41% are over counted relative to city dwellers.
For more information see how Harris County, the most populous county in the US I think, has been corralled by Gerrymandering to deliver almost no representatives in Texas.
So, the leak is not exactly the gift to dems that it seems at first blush.
Hi, Jeri, I keep thinking we Dems can come up with a way to act in good faith and still be politically savvy. So far we're having trouble with the "realpolitik" part. However, I do have to say that I don't think we do ourselves any favors--those of us who are seriously considering all this--to overestimate the good faith of our Democratic politicians. The best of our elected representatives are still politicians and those who run for these offices are, on their finest days, still running for offices that carry great power. Granted, men like Obama and Biden at least partly want power to do some good, but possibly our ineptitude can be blamed on our belief in our own "We lose because we're too pure at heart to play dirty." line.
The Democrat who comes to my mind as a man of startlingly clean motives is Adlai Stevenson--and the received wisdom around the Beltway was that the Kennedys chewed him up and left him in a roadside ditch. There was an article about Stevenson when he was first running called something like "The Man from La Mancha" and it's thesis was that he was "better suited for the presidency of Plato's Republic than the United States."
"So, the leak is not exactly the gift to dems that it seems at first blush."
I agree completely. Alito, who declared in this opinion that “it is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives” also wrote the majority opinion last year that gutted the Voting Rights Act, letting stand an Arizona law despite the fact that it was demonstrated it had a greater negative impact on minorities. Alito dismissed this selective disenfranchisement as merely “inconvenient”. James Madison worried about the ‘tyranny of the majority’. Perhaps he should have been more fearful of the tyranny of a minority that successfully guarantees that they will always be the ‘people’s elected representatives.’
If they can't make it into a positive, Mike, then they are dead from the neck up and have killed a great majority of the people. If they have the votes in both houses to overturn a Bidon veto, watch out Blue States as they will control you too.
I am not sure that there are enough American voters to, necessarily, overcome the recent highly effective state Gerrymandering of city dwellers into a small number of representatives Stuart.
Plus, a bunch of the Secretary of State race outcomes might put nutjobs in place that simply ignore the actual vote outcome.
It is not as simple as "we have the votes". We do have a bit of a majority, (60/40) but, not that large and likely located in Gerrymandered areas that have been minimized where representation is relevant.
In other words Stuart, we might be dead from the feet up.
It seemed that Republicans were ready to take over at least the House or Senate or maybe both in the mid-terms to more fully shut down the Biden Administration’s attempts to govern and further rig the 2024 vote. But in the wake of the Putin wing’s resistance to defending the U.S. and the world against fascist atrocities, this stacked SCOTUS over-reach may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Many columnists are recognizing the horror of overturning Roe and its wider implications. If the Republican Party has its way, we will no longer be “one nation.” Each state will make its own laws in a party line that will make us a confederacy of Red versus Blue. People will flee their states for states supporting their political orientation and will only be able to hope that the other party doesn’t prevail after they have relocated, because there will be few federal norms that bind us under the rule of law. We can hope that the dog HAS caught the car and will suffer the consequences. Let’s do better than hope and get out the vote of the majority of us!
Hoping your observation becomes reality, perhaps what was once the moderate wing of the GOP will awaken from its deep sleep and rid the party of the zealots that they have allowed to take control of their party.
I nominate Liz Cheney to lead that charge.
If Liz Cheney is the hero of this story then we are all in serious trouble.
Mike S, I agree! As much as I respect Liz Cheney for not taking “the bridge too far” she did side with Trump over 90% of the time.
And, her father is the very model of evil, if such a thing exists.
If the "devil" is her father, then, what is she?
Mike Liz Cheney’s dad is still a Dick.
:-o
The devil’s spawn?
Yup
Sounds pretty bad does it not?
I wonder what she thinks of him? It would be interesting to hear a conversation between her and Mary Trump.
Mike In Schindler’s List, Schindler, despite being a generally despicable individual, in rescuing over 1,000 Jews did a marvelous thing. Liz Cheney, who reflects much of her parents’ despicable heritage, has launched an anti-Trump crusade from her political base in staunchly Republican Wyoming.
I am uncertain whether Liz is being noble and courageous or whether she is playing her cards for a post-Trump Republican Party.
Trust me! She is playing her cards to lead a post-Trump Republican Party
Sharon Any thoughts on who would be dealing? I think I’ll rewatch THE STING.
Keith, you are dating yourself😉. She does have the backing of a lot of business interests. Daddy can make calls
I should hope so. That we can trust and not if it was for any higher reason.
Trust me, Sharon, I cannot trust you under this circumstance. I'd rather wait a bit until I know before deciding in advance.
You left the door open, Arrow Man. That is a good thing. Stereotyping and scapegoating infect us all. I hope that your arrow provokes self-reflection. Defending with 'like father like son' is so easy to grab hold of.
Yup.
Keith, as always, great point. Sometimes bad people do good things.
I think Keith's alternative to Liz being noble and courageous is probably correct. However, she is one of the few Republicans who have done anything good, regardless of her motivations. She deserves credit for that.
Probably a combination. But she had the courage for this moment!! Courage to put it simply IS courage and she has it. The future will reveal the rest.
Never in a million years would I have thought I would see Liz Cheney as a hero, but in the case of bringing Trump and the insurrectionists to possible justice, she is....
I'll wait and see if she really does.
😂
She is 100% rated by every gop org and has been anti choice and anti gay including her own sister! Nice thought for a movie but not in this environment
My point is things have gone so far down the rabbit hole that the likes of Liz Cheney represent Republican political sanity.
First step; wrest control of the party from the MAGA mob.
Agree 1000%, Ralph.
Liz admitted her mistake in voting against LGBTQ legislation and reconciled with her dad and gay sister But that doesn't really have much bearing on her stand on abortion.
She has repudiated her position on gay marriage. She seemed genuinely contrite about how her sister had been affected.
Yes, but being a person with incredible political power, her “OOOPS!” Destroy peoples lives. And she is doing squat to rectify that.
Liz Cheney has taken her current stance in order to distance herself from the crazies currently in control of the right wing. I believe she's positioning herself for a run for the presidency in the future, preferably when the Trumpies are no longer dominant. I doubt that she'll do much to promote Democratic ideals. Don't forget the specter of her Dad.
Nancy I believe that Liz Cheney will be a credible presidential candidate just after the College of Cardinals elects me Pope (and I'm not Catholic--so far)
I think it will be quite some time before she is viewed as anything other than a traitor to the cause. It's going to take time to erase the stench of TFG. Whatever her motivations, I'll have to give her credit for being on the January 6 commission.
And the “zealot” J.D. Vance wins the Republican primary in Ohio.
“Addressing supporters in Cincinnati, Vance thanked Trump for his endorsement and attacked the media for highlighting his past criticism of the former president. “They wanted to write a story that this campaign would be the death of Donald Trump’s America First agenda,” Vance said. “It ain’t the death of the America First agenda.””
Trumpism is alive and well it seems.
Maybe alive, but not well.
I do have a positive note about Republicans however. I live in Cincy and we were assaulted with political ads 24x7. One anti Vance ad (I think it was a PAC) listed Vance's earlier fealty violations against Trump which included this gem: "He even compared Trump to Hitler". BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AD BEING COMPARED TO HITLER IS A BAD THING! Someone tip off the NYT so they can flood Ohio with reporters scouring diners to profile kinder, gentler Republicans!
🤬🤬🤬
Fractured States of America—just when u think things can’t get any worse.
"Fractured States of America" now there's a catch phrase to run with...simple, to the point, and easy to remember.
The purpose of the Constitution was to bind the individual states together into a common government. Federal law had to take precedent over state law or there would have been no common ground. A bunch of little states would have been picked off by the greater powers at the time. Welding themselves together under the Constitution made them safer the founders thought. The justices trot out originalism when it suits their purposes. Originalism is just legal bs. If the right to privacy does not exist, what happens to HIPPA protecting healthcare privacy? What happens to searches and seizures? What the hell is the “party of small government” ( yeah, right) doing trying to stand in people’s bedrooms, but they won’t try to regulate corporate behavior in boardroom? This is a hateful decision to hurt and punish women based on religious dogma and political ideology.
There was a wonderful scene in The West Wing in which Josh Lyman said to a gay (but closeted, of course) Republican congressman that he’s amused to see how the party wants to shrink government until its just small enough to fit in our bedrooms.
Jon, truly one of the best shows - writing and casting treasures!
Have you noticed how much Joe Biden resembles Jed Bartlet? And not just the initials.
Jenn, you are absolutely correct that this decision is designed to punish women. In my minds eye it removes full citizenship from women, turning us into chattel and stripping us of the rights to make healthcare and quality of life decisions for ourselves. In other words, we woman are fit enough to work and pay taxes but must not have agency over our own bodies.
You bring up HIPPA. Many folks do not understand what HIPPA is and how it works. Here is an excerpt in re the HIPPA Privacy Rule and who/what it applies to Llink follows.
"HIPPA Privacy Rule
The Privacy Rule standards address the use and disclosure of individuals’ health information (known as “protected health information”) by entities subject to the Privacy Rule. These individuals and organizations are called “covered entities.” The Privacy Rule also contains standards for individuals’ rights to understand and control how their health information is used. A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to ensure that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public’s health and well-being. The Privacy Rule strikes a balance that permits important uses of information while protecting the privacy of people who seek care and healing."
https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/hipaa.html
Right. So *unless* and individual who had the abortion shares information publicly that she had an abortion, what information are these lawsuits being initiated with? They can bring a person to court, based on their observation of a woman entering a facility on suspicion of having had an abortion, but then how do they prove that she did indeed have 1) a pregnancy and 2) a therapeutic abortion without violating HIPAA?
Maybe she went in for a consult, or to do some provider education, or to paint a mural on their wall. Lying about that couldn't be any more egregious than lying in front of a legislative hearing to get onto the court, right?
Your questions/concerns are spot on. Basically, law enforcement is relying on "concerned" friends and family members ratting out other family members OR prosecution is being based on speculation/circumstantial evidence.
Hi, Daria! I've been interested in your perspective on this, since you live in a place where the highest court has "decriminalized" abortion as recently as last year (according to Wikipedia), leaving enforcement to the several Mexican states. Have you gotten any impression as to the effect that has had on the people there?
I haven't read all the comments above, but a glance implies that some people might be confusing the fundamental difference between Constitutional law and statutory law. Alito is advocating eliminating most or all of the rights that stem from the "penumbra" of the Fourteenth Amendment, rights that aren't specifically spelled out, but implied as being necessary for the named rights to have meaning.
I don't know what right HIPAA is based on (I'd have to read the statute), but if it's based on a federal "right of privacy," then it would be jeopardized by Alito's decision, because there is no such right expressly listed in the Constitution. If there is no such federal right, then, under the Tenth Amendment, the States can do as they please.
That's why you see commentators saying that this threatens to permit states to outlaw contraception, since this "penumbra" logic was used to justify the Court's decision to bar States from mucking with it. Whether Alito's decision would directly affect the Loving decision, which prohibited States from barring interracial marriage, would depend on how the intersection of race and privacy issues works out. Litigation looms, wicked lawyers rub their hands! The Court would have to revisit these issues, if it does at all, one Right at a time because Alito and his cadre will have severed the underpinnings of an entire class of settled law that dates back to WWII.
Dirk--I think you are quite correct about the implications of "devolving" federal laws back to the states, allowing a divide and conquer approach on any given hot-button issue. But your citing of possible Tenth Amendment-based threats to privacy issues raises a question I have rarely seen addressed in the flood of originalist hogwash: the Ninth Amendment very simply states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The notion that people have privacy rights beyond those specified in the Fourth Amendment, and that the content of and contexts for exercising those rights have changed since 1789, seems to me eminently defensible in con law. Even if true, this approach still leaves all the substantive due process expansions for "small government" types to contest and wail about. But at least we wouldn't have to go searching for penumbras.
[Add: I now see that others have brought up the 9th Amendment issue further down the thread. I would only add that "liberty" seems to me to definitely be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”]
Hi Dirk, Yes, each of the 31 states of México has the right to decide exceptions for abortion and whether to prosecute a woman or not. Right now abortion is still fairly restricted throughout the country, including Yucatán. However in February, "A Federal Judge granted the injunction against the regulation of the crime of abortion in the Yucatan Penal Code and against the life protection clause established in the state Constitution." Still, as the law stands in Yucatán abortion is "Illegal with exception for rape, maternal life, fetal defects, if abortion was accidental, or economic factors (if woman already has 3 children)."
It's interesting to me that the economic exception in Yucatán is tied to the number of children a woman has not whether or not she can provide for herself and even a single child adequately. The minimum per day wage in México is $172.87 MXN or the equivalent of $8.50 USD. The Méxican work week is 6 Days so one's supposed monthly legal minimum wage would be equivalent to $212.50 USD. I can guarantee you there are plenty of people, especially women, who do not make that wage and struggle mightily day in and day out to provide for their families. There are areas all throughout this state and country where families live in shacks cobbled together from shipping pallets, cardboard and tarps. No electricity. No running water. Minimal access to basic healthcare. These are the women who have zero access to reproductive healthcare as well. And there is rarely any way out of that situation for their children (despite the fact that education for all is a constitutional right in México).
So, what about abortion here. First and foremost it is not something generally talked about by women who are economically struggling and uneducated and/or rural. Theoretically speaking, birth control is absolutely legal and over the counter, no prescription is required, so one would think that contraception availability would address some of the issues. Not so. A woman's ability to acquire birth control depends on such factors as age, socio-economic status, and ethnicity, in other words, the counter person at the pharmacy decides who gets it and who doesn't. Dead serious. And, of course, that means the indigenous population is hardest hit There are serious attempts by Méxican feminist organizations to provide information, contraception and abortion support but the influence of the Catholic church, family and an individual woman's community generally have far more influence on their decision making process than a stranger.
The bottom line here is if you are educated and have the financial means you can get anything you want, including an abortion, on demand.
https://www.theyucatantimes.com/2022/02/women-won-protection-against-the-crime-of-abortion-in-yucatan/
❤ Heart broken, on substack and in reality. Thanks, Daria.
Let us not kid ourselves. HIPPA is about as private as my dog's arse, meaning everyone can see it but the dog. It was devised during GWB's administration to facilitate the flow of info so insurances and medical practitioners could do or not do as it best suited their profit motives. All it says is "you should not look at this information if you have nothing to do with the patient/client." That leaves a lot of room for clerks, lab assistants, medical professionals, insurers, et al to access whatever.
And they have legal exposure for doing so. Maybe it's time that some of the resources we pool get directed to supporting women, who's private medical information has been breached by anyone within the practice, etc, to sue that entity responsible for protecting the info. The reason HIPAA appears to have no teeth is that the states are not willing to do any enforcement, and individuals do not know how or have the resources to seek remediation.
I agree having been a psych administrator both pre-and-post HIPAA. Integrity fell on my shoulders and I took that role very seriously. What I saw others doing with confidential information, however, makes me cringe.
However, if the Republicans take the House and Senate, and trump wins in 2024, will there be a Federal law passed by Congress to outlaw abortion everywhere do you think?
I think that is the pipe dream of some. However, I'm guessing the outcry will be so loud, those weeny R pols will trip over their own feet trying to appease the majority of Americans. (Ex: "Republicans are all about personal freedom and privacy.") Just maybe there will be light shown on their facetious motivations for courting the religious right.
This current iteration of SCOTUS has been IGNORING the Federal Supremacy clause of the Constitution and keeps pushing to ship things back to the states so the ultra RW SCOTUS agenda is carried out. " SCOTUS is Nonpolitical"-hogwash!.
Holy cow, our thoughts are traveling on the same wavelength. I've had nearly identical thoughts in the last 24 hours. HIPAA, small government except when we're up in your bidness, inflicting misery on others, etc.
Yes, total hypocrisy in terms of "small government." The radical regressive right wing is beside itself with all the gains made by people who should either be barefoot and PG or out of sight. Here in the PNW in Washington and Oregon clinics are already preparing for lots of new patients. The governor's office is up for grabs here in Oregon. All the Ds would be OK and even the D running as an I. (She knew she had no shot as a D) The Rs are trying for the most part to sidestep this one. Their ads are about homelessness, crime, schools, mandates. I have no idea who will prevail on the R side and it might be close on the D side.
❤️
Thank you for your thoughts. You have just said what I was thinking but put it so much more succinctly and far better.
Yes, HIPPA crossed my mind as well. Why doesn't HIPPA (as long as we still have it....) make it impossible for anyone to learn that a woman has had an abortion?
Technically, HIPPA makes it impossible for anyone to learn a specific woman (name, Date of Birth, Medical Record #) is pregnant. Does anyone think that will be a deterrent?
Sadly, it's *theoretically* impossible. The prohibition on providing medical information w/o a patient's consent extends to information about what their medical issue is and what the treatment may be. And no, I don't think HIPPA will be a deterrent ...to determined data miners... or 'leaks'.
attempted like
Yes and true— I think many will be moving to the kinder blue states.
I don't think it's a good idea to write off ANY states. Many states have been "captured" by Republican politicians who do NOT represent the majority. We owe those folks the protection we have constructed through our federal government. It is fair to say that the Republicans do not have the "consent of the governed."
Understood but they’re sure looking to control the states.
Or some like my Trump neighbor moved last fall from blue to red, CT to FL. Said she couldn't live in a blue state.
Bye bye Felicia!
All those we know in SoCal have been fleeing to Prescott, AZ. It's the craziest thing...5 households in the past year. All Trumpers, highly educated, Evangelicals or very conservative Catholics. They believe we are in the end of times.
Maybe they just have a subconscious death wish.
If only we weren't so old!
Liz, here’s another thought:
We True Blue folks, starting with LFAA students currently dwelling in super-sanguine states, ban together and find a spot, thinking Europe, and set up shop?!
Europe has so many problems now—Canada has tons of room and Toronto is a vibrant city. Just sayin.
Yukon
Very good point!
Untied States of a mer rica.
Untied States of Amerika
Gary: As I posted yesterday, this makes it soberingly clear that all the rhetoric about "states' rights" is simply the Trojan Horse for Confederacy 2.0. It is the next turn of the screw. Just as the notion that the Texas legislature is free to legally encourage vigilantism by codifying bounties for citizens to sue each other for exercising a constitutionally-protected right offends basic jurisprudence, this brazen move to reverse long-standing precedent under the guise of "states' rights" portends some rough sledding for the Nation up ahead. Potential adversaries in China, Russia and elsewhere who wish us no good will delight in this self-inflicted wound that can only further unravel the national fabric. It is becoming eerily evident that this Court thinks each state gets to write its own rules on pretty much everything, and we know how that works out....W/r, cdl
Trojan Horse indeed.
Beyond "self inflicted" woulds, I'd postulate that the US seems to be engaging in conduct similar to a circular firing squad. There will be no survivors.
With respect I see, LTG Charles, but how are you using "cdl"?
Just my initials...tends to be an old habit! :-)
Funny initials story: For a time, when I went in service with my local law enforcement agency, we had to use our initials and badge number. Now, I know that the military (I don't know if you are Army or USMC) uses letters to denote such things...FUBAR comes to mind. We always referred to a person acting in a manner to be consistent with an anal orifice as an "Adam Henry", utilizing the common vulgar reference to hat part of the human anatomy.
We had a retired SPC 5 as a dispatcher, and I went into service as "Adam Adam Henry, 540" He about died laughing.
Good one! Have an awesome day. Keep pounding...cdl
Thx!
Exactly right!
Dogs become addicted to chasing cars. It’s hard to break them of the habit. Generally, car chasing dogs get run over by the car.
Thanks JennSH. I was completely puzzled by the analogy.
I had read this phrase a couple months ago over on Stonekettle Station; it roughly translates to "I got what I wanted and now I have no idea what to do next".
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/dog+that+caught+the+car
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dog%20that%20caught%20the%20car
I have often wondered why the 100th Monkey Effect (evolution accommodates learning when repeated actions harm the species) doesn't seem to apply to dogs chasing cars.
And in the end, half the country will be "well above average" and half will be "well below average."
Yes but the Red's gerrymandered control of what will be left of the Feds will ensure that the Blue States continue to make massive financial transfers to them......suckered by good intentions, political blindness and inertia. As Benjamin Disreali wrote, "Hope for the best, plan for the worst". The Dems have neglected their classic literature for far too long.....a new reading of Macchiaveli's "The Prince" might help them a little.
Ok Stuart, here’s the plan. Capitol: Washington DC, Maryland county, Virginia county, North Carolina county, Idaho county, Texas county, Florida county, etc. Oops no more states rights. Codes gone.
Unfortunately that’s what appears to be true.
The NsUS: The not so united states. Another check on the Vladimir Putin wish list!
Vote we will, and vote we must, for this GOP and this SCOTUS are ABOMINATIONS!
Morning, Gary. I’ve been waiting for Politics Girl (Leigh McGowan) to use a podcast to speak out on the bully dogs attack of public education. She did so this week. Validating. And our voices suddenly became more clear and peal like the Liberty Bell.
Salud!
https://youtu.be/ihUWwFuJOvU
She thoroughly covers the history of public education in America, right up to DeVos's efforts to privatize education and the current variant.
Not to mention the public hearings on 1/6 to be held in June. This has the appearance of being the moment in time when the lid blows off. The next 6-12 months might be seriously ugly. There’s a momentum building.
The Supreme Court justices knew “the dog was chasing the car” when several went to friendly forums and made speeches asserting their legal purity and complete lack of political affiliation in the fall. They wouldn’t have had such an agenda had the nation been slumbering. That wing of the court is shredded now. The Supreme Court’s reputation for probity has flown until those 6 justices have retired. And this moment will define their lives. One wonders how they slept last night.
Finally, the draft decision itself is, effectively, 95% of of the story. But the leak itself is not unimportant. This was not whistleblowing in any sense of that honorable word. This was a political cri de coeur, which in its own way reinforces how political the court has become. Either side could have done the leaking. Either way there was a political reason behind it. And it serves as further evidence that this Court is utterly broken.
This has been what SCOTUS has been working toward by their continually saying "Send it back to the states." IMHO, they have decided to IGNORE the Constitution's Federal Supremacy clause so their donors can do what they want, regardless of laws.
I know this might be an off the wall thought, but I'd like to see HCR appear on Colbert so she becomes even more widely known.
Perhaps then with an even greater audience, more and more sensibility would be in the forefront.
“We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” he wrote. Excuse Me?
Morning Lynell. Awful to say but.....With a political gift like this and the number of people that they should be able to get riled up enough to vote for them, if the Dems can't create an electoral landslide in November and dominate sufficiently both houses then they are not the party of the future. They are going to disappear under the waves. Resistence to the GOP autocracy will have to organize around them....and without them as they will not be a player.
That is a very true statement, Stuart. We have to hold our representatives feet over a fire and make certain they get the message that we’re mad and we aren’t gonna take it anymore! I know you wrote to Lynell, but thought I’d chime in too. :)
The more voices the better, Marlene!
Morning Marlene, you're very welcome.
Stuart,
59% of Americans say abortion should be legal. (So, 41% say something else).
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/
Let us form the reasonable hyptothesis that those 59% are city and suburban voters with some college education.
That leaves 41% in the rural areas to provide the votes necessary to keep a minority opinion in place after an election in which Gerrymandering insures the votes of those 41% are over counted relative to city dwellers.
For more information see how Harris County, the most populous county in the US I think, has been corralled by Gerrymandering to deliver almost no representatives in Texas.
So, the leak is not exactly the gift to dems that it seems at first blush.
Repubs have made sure of that, all day every day for decades. Dems tried to govern in good faith, what a stupid idea…
"in good faith" is what John Adams wanted and visualized.
So, I am OK with that.
"In good faith" is never the problem UNLESS you are getting your "faith" told to you by the white man at the front of the church.
And that, says Sherlock, is the problem …
Yes. That is how a Trump is born.
Faced with bad faith on the part of the perenial other you lose every time...except when you get your halo and pass the pearly gates for good
Hi, Jeri, I keep thinking we Dems can come up with a way to act in good faith and still be politically savvy. So far we're having trouble with the "realpolitik" part. However, I do have to say that I don't think we do ourselves any favors--those of us who are seriously considering all this--to overestimate the good faith of our Democratic politicians. The best of our elected representatives are still politicians and those who run for these offices are, on their finest days, still running for offices that carry great power. Granted, men like Obama and Biden at least partly want power to do some good, but possibly our ineptitude can be blamed on our belief in our own "We lose because we're too pure at heart to play dirty." line.
The Democrat who comes to my mind as a man of startlingly clean motives is Adlai Stevenson--and the received wisdom around the Beltway was that the Kennedys chewed him up and left him in a roadside ditch. There was an article about Stevenson when he was first running called something like "The Man from La Mancha" and it's thesis was that he was "better suited for the presidency of Plato's Republic than the United States."
I believe I am now officially rambling.
"So, the leak is not exactly the gift to dems that it seems at first blush."
I agree completely. Alito, who declared in this opinion that “it is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives” also wrote the majority opinion last year that gutted the Voting Rights Act, letting stand an Arizona law despite the fact that it was demonstrated it had a greater negative impact on minorities. Alito dismissed this selective disenfranchisement as merely “inconvenient”. James Madison worried about the ‘tyranny of the majority’. Perhaps he should have been more fearful of the tyranny of a minority that successfully guarantees that they will always be the ‘people’s elected representatives.’
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/998758022/the-supreme-court-upheld-upholds-arizona-measures-that-restrict-voting
If they can't make it into a positive, Mike, then they are dead from the neck up and have killed a great majority of the people. If they have the votes in both houses to overturn a Bidon veto, watch out Blue States as they will control you too.
I am not sure that there are enough American voters to, necessarily, overcome the recent highly effective state Gerrymandering of city dwellers into a small number of representatives Stuart.
Plus, a bunch of the Secretary of State race outcomes might put nutjobs in place that simply ignore the actual vote outcome.
It is not as simple as "we have the votes". We do have a bit of a majority, (60/40) but, not that large and likely located in Gerrymandered areas that have been minimized where representation is relevant.
In other words Stuart, we might be dead from the feet up.