Democrat 2020

[Montmorency]

A goodly chunk of those opposing abortion (most) do so because they believe that life begins at conception and that that life therefore should be accorded the same chance at "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" as any other life. The goal of protecting the unborn is deemed worthy of itself and is not being used as a tool to worsen the lives of women. The thinking among them would freely acknowledge that such a restriction would be burdensome to some women and that some degree of harm would occur -- they simply view the value of human life in its totality as being of more importance than the deleterious impact on the woman who is bearing that child.

Thank you for taking time to comment, but ultimately I don't think this is meaningfully true. There is an implicit bridge that you aren't mentioning, a bridge between a personal distaste for abortion and the demand that state power of police and judiciary and civil service be wielded to suppress abortion (and contraception, and...). This bridge does not exist unless one extravagantly devalues the woman compared to the fetus. It does not exist when one does weigh the evidence and considers what legislative course of action actually serves children and reduces the frequency of abortion. It is incompatible with many freedoms from government conservatives are alleged to defend.

And yet, we know these Republicans do not value either fetuses or born children. An example of the former would be legislators of the Alabama bill (Or was it the Georgia bill? I don't care to check) admitting up front that fertilized embryos are not to be considered persons until the point where they have been implanted in the gestator. An example of the latter would be outright rejections of any social welfare spending on children in general, and the rejection of any social welfare spending on children who would otherwise have been aborted pre-ban. These examples are instantiated in the same theme in so many places over decades that it becomes a strong pattern. There's too much of the pattern to fully elucidate in a sitting, such as the ongoing criminalization of even miscarriage - something women have already been subjected to.

Restriction and subordination of women, callousness toward women and to their born and unborn children. What this logically adds up to is not a value of "protecting the unborn", but a pretext to control and punish women according to a restrictive set of sexual and gender mores. It does not begin or end with abortion. This, I would say, is the true majority of the banners. And yes, let me be the first to admit that many or most of this demographic, dominated by religious fundamentalists as it is, would often prefer not to apply such standards to themselves or their kin - they're not the fallen women, it's those other trollops. Rationing censure for outsiders is merely hypocrisy and special pleading, not a testament to less-disagreeable latent attitude.

"Conservative" might imply that banners want to return to the legal status quo ante Roe; they professedly want to go much further... These people don't care when life does or doesn't begin, they want to enslave women. Moreover, they don't care whether or not the median Republican voter is fully-committed to their maximalism, or only partially, tentatively, with qualification. A 'good Republican' counts all the same, certainly not less than a passive "moderate" or a passive liberal who unexaminedly thinks the Roe precedent insoluble forever.

And though I just alluded to it, let me say it straight for your benefit that most Republican voters (as opposed to the activists and politicians) are not maximalists on abortion - but they are overwhelmingly indifferent to or mildly supportive of maximalism.

I personally think such a view is idiotic, but there is no enforceable law against stupidity.

The venerable Constitution hopefully still counts, if we are to have equal protection of the law. Let's ratify the Equal Rights Amendment while we're at it, to make sure.

The more I think about it the more it seems we should act quickly to appropriate this phrase "you threaten my people with slavery and death" and its source material from the right, because it's so widely applicable as a retort to reactionary politics.

To give them their due, the Alabamans have passed a relatively straightforward and reasonably uncomplicated law on the issue. Saves parsing the nuances a bit and lets the courts address the issue at the core of the dispute. Nor were its proponents shy about noting that it was so designed in order to force the courts to take up the Roe Wade issue.

Of course, SCOTUS could simply let a lower court's overturning of the law stand and refuse to take up the issue. Not all efforts to force the SCOTUS to address an issue have ended the way the persons bringing the issue up had hoped.

That would be our hope, but it's a dim hope given that the Roberts court has progressively undermined the jurisprudential standard against abortion restrictions, and is a particularly activist court in the overturning of precedent (see previous post).

But forget about these abortion bans, there is a good bet that Roe is a dead letter within a year due to another case. Would you like me to explain? Spoilered:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You might recall some years back a Texas law that aimed to close down abortion clinics by imposing arbitrary architectural and medical licensing requirements on them ("arbitrary" in the sense that the Herculean labors were arbitrary). In 2016 the Supreme Court struck the law down in Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt in a 5-3 decision, because arbitrary obstacles impose an undue burden. NB this was not long after Scalia's death. Fast forward to late 2018, and a substantially-similar Louisiana law was upheld in federal appeals court in clear contravention of the just-established Supreme Court precedent. The case is June Medical Services v. Gee.

Roberts decided to grant an emergency stay against the appelate decision. But this is probably because Roberts is defending his own authority, not because he's afraid of licensing the sub silentio demolition of abortion protections. How do we know? Because the stay is temporary, and will expire upon the court's decision to take or not take the case. Letting the stay lapse leaves the SCOTUS-flouting appelate decision in place and declares open season against abortion for all reactionary jurists.

But wait! - I thought Roberts valued the authority of his court? Probably - that's why he'll personally overrule 2016's Whole Woman's Health.

But wait! - maybe he'll be centrist and uphold the precedent? Lol nah, he voted with the minority to uphold Texas' law in Whole Woman's Health. Why would he suddenly vote to reject a near-carbon copy?

Roberts, Alito, Thomas were the 3 dissenters in the 5-3 in Whole Woman's Health in 2016. They are now joined on the bench by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted rejecting the stay in June Medical in 2018.

The Supreme Court must now decide whether or not it will hear the case. If they don't hear the case, the stay lapses and the law goes into effect. If they hear the case, then a majority of the justices have previously voted to uphold this kind of law. If the law is upheld by SCOTUS, then states are licensed to shut down every single operating abortion clinic and they're guaranteed to push that envelope with a receptive majority on the Supreme Court.

Heh. Hee hee.

HA HA HA HA HA HA H-

@ACIN
@Strike

Read the spoiler. The court either hear this case or let the stay expire by the end of the session in June 2020, a year from now. Those are the only two options. Does reading this increase your confidence in a forthcoming mortal blow, one way or another, to Constitutional abortion rights?