Biden says right to choose 'fundamental' after leaked document suggests US could allow abortion ban.

[Batman]

Nobody gives a flying fuck about your totally irrelevant guns, this is about womens' rights to bodily autonomy and companies not being allowed to effectively destroy the planet and END the human race in the quest for short-term profit.

[Jub]

Nobody gives a flying fuck about your totally irrelevant guns, this is about womens' rights to bodily autonomy and companies not being allowed to effectively destroy the planet and END the human race in the quest for short-term profit.

Buh... Buh... My extremely specific anecdotes about gun violence in a single US city.

[Highlord Laan]

All I'm going is hoping this will start a process.

The process is dead, has been since the late 90's. Your hopes are nothing but the same useless feelgood bullshit people use when they tell themselves voting matters.

The fascist fifth-column fuckers control all levels of government, the democrats are too old, useless, gutless, and cowardly to make any sort of attempt at change since doing so would endanger their precious neoliberal policies, and it will only get worse. Alito, his pet Thomas, fratboy and the handmaiden are gunning for every bit of civil right progress made in the last sixty years, a legion of drooling, cornfuck red-staters and bronze-age fanatics raise their crosses in salute, and yet all democrats care about is high roads, unity, and being civil.

There is only one way to solve this, and people will never take it since it would interrupt their cat videos and social media feeds.

[MKSheppard]

Nobody gives a flying fuck about your totally irrelevant guns, this is about womens' rights to bodily autonomy

I'm treating this thread as the consolidated "SCOTUS 2021 Apocalypse" thread; since we got three major consequential rulings in such short space in a single term.

and companies not being allowed to effectively destroy the planet and END the human race in the quest for short-term profit.

You realize that SCOTUS didn't rule against that? They ruled that the EPA can't just arbitrarily reclassify items as pollutants so that they can regulate them under the Clean Air Act.

It's still constitutional to regulate Greenhouse Gases; it's just that Congress is going to have to pass a law specifically listing them, and offer specific guidance, e.g. xyz parts per million; rather than legislators shrugging their hands and letting EPA use Chevron and their regulatory powers pre-WVA v EPA to do it without being forced to put it to a vote which puts them on the record.

This also has gun control ramifications -- because for the last couple of Democratic administrations (Obama and now Biden); they were never really able to get the votes for gun control; so they had to use the ATF's regulatory powers to do an end run around congress (Pistol Braces, 80% Receivers, etc).

Buh... Buh... My extremely specific anecdotes about gun violence in a single US city.

With their final session, SCOTUS GVR'red ((Granted Cert, vacated, and remanded) not one, but FOUR cases, telling the lower courts to try again, and to pay attention to Heller and Bruen in making their new rulings:

Young v. Hawaii (Hawaii denial of Concealed Carry Permit)
ANJPRC v. Grewal (NJ Magazine Ban)
Duncan v. Bonta (CA Magazine Ban)

and...

Bianchi v. Frosh (MD Assault Weapons Ban)

[madd0c0t0r2]

Except with Moscow Mitch refusing to table things, Congress is unable to pass laws. Your elected gubberment is broken, and the SCOTUS just stopped your civil servants adapting to the present situation.

"we got three major consequential rulings in such short space in a single term."- yeah. I've seen at least one person suggest they have timed this for this week in order to drown the Jun 6th hearings in the news cycle. All changes their backers had demanded, and would be delivered, but the timing is strategic too. It's all a bit banana republic for this outsider.

[Agent Fisher]

Except with Moscow Mitch refusing to table things, Congress is unable to pass laws. Your elected gubberment is broken, and the SCOTUS just stopped your civil servants adapting to the present situation.

"we got three major consequential rulings in such short space in a single term."- yeah. I've seen at least one person suggest they have timed this for this week in order to drown the Jun 6th hearings in the news cycle. All changes their backers had demanded, and would be delivered, but the timing is strategic too. It's all a bit banana republic for this outsider.

To be fair with regards to timing, it's the end of their session, they're about to go on break. They've always dropped the hot takes at the end as their on their way out the door. "Oh, we just totally upended the current political landscape, good luck, we're going on vacation, see you next court year!"

[Solauren]

Nobody gives a flying fuck about your totally irrelevant guns, this is about womens' rights to bodily autonomy and companies not being allowed to effectively destroy the planet and END the human race in the quest for short-term profit.

I have to disagree with you.

This is the Republic party gutting any and all government regulation. By forcing Congress and the Senate to not be able to let agencies handle things, then elected officials will either have to ignore problems, or have way more to do. This opens things up for lobby groups to get their way.

i.e I can see a Christian lobby group going US Citizens not being allowed to get abortions, even if out of country. Even if it's a case of a 'citizen' that has never been to the United States as an adult (or even an older child)

[EnterpriseSovereign]

This is a turn-up for the books:

Kansas has voted to protect abortion rights in its constitution by rejecting an amendment that would have allowed lawmakers to tighten restrictions of ban abortion outright.

It is the first US state to put abortion rights to a vote since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in June, the 1973 ruling that established the right to safe and legal abortion at any point before a foetus can survive outside the womb, for nearly five decades.

The vote was the first test of popular opinion since the Supreme Court's decision, and was unexpected in a deeply conservative and typically Republican state.

“This vote makes clear what we know: the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion and should have the right to make their own health care decisions,” President Joe Biden said in a statement.

After calling on Congress to “restore the protections of Roe” in federal law, Biden added, "the American people must continue to use their voices to protect the right to women’s health care, including abortion.”

On Wednesday, the president will sign an executive order aimed at making it easier for women to travel between states to access abortions.

He will issue a directive that will allow states that have not outlawed abortion to apply for specific Medicaid waivers that would, in effect, help them treat women who have travelled from another state.

The vote provided a warning to Republicans who had celebrated the Supreme Court ruling and have been enacting abortion bans or near-bans in nearly half the states.

“Kansans bluntly rejected anti-abortion politicians’ attempts at creating a reproductive police state,” said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity.

”Today’s vote was a powerful rebuke and a promise of the mounting resistance," she added.

A 'yes' vote on the ballot would have removed from the state constitution the right to an abortion and put the issue in the hands of the state lawmakers.

The 'no' vote means no changes will be made, keeping abortion rights enshrined in the state constitution.

Mallory Carroll, spokesperson for the national anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, described the vote as “a huge disappointment” for the movement and called on anti-abortion candidates to “go on the offensive.”

She added that after the Supreme Court ruling, “We must work exponentially harder to achieve and maintain protections for unborn children and their mothers.”

“This outcome is a temporary setback, and our dedicated fight to value women and babies is far from over," said Emily Massey, a spokesperson for the pro-amendment campaign.

Kristy Winter, a teacher, voted against the measure and brought her 16-year-old daughter with her to her polling place.

“I want her to have the same right to do what she feels is necessary, mostly in the case of rape or incest,” she said. “I want her to have the same rights my mother has had most of her life.”

Abortion advocates predicted the anti-abortion groups and lawmakers behind the ballot would push quickly for an abortion ban if voters approved it.

Before the vote, the measure’s supporters refused to say whether they would pursue a ban as they appealed to voters who supported both some restrictions and some access to abortion.

The Kansas vote is the start of what could be a long-running series of legal battles playing out where lawmakers are more conservative on abortion than governors or state courts.

Kentucky will vote in November on whether to add language similar to Kansas’ proposed amendment to its state constitution.

Meanwhile, Vermont will decide in November whether to add an abortion rights provision to its constitution. A similar question is likely headed to the November ballot in Michigan.

After the decision, clinics in some states stopped performing abortions almost immediately.
Some states had unenforced laws predating 1973 that were able to come back to life immediately once the ruling was reversed.

Others had so-called trigger bans that were able to be quickly enforced.

States which have tightened restrictions or effectively banned abortion since Roe v Wade was overturned include Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Some states still offering the procedure, including Minnesota, are seeing a surge of out-of-state patients coming to their abortion clinics.

Some pro-choice states also offered women from states where abortion is now banned support to travel to a state where it is legal.

[MKSheppard]

You realize that SCOTUS didn't rule against that? They ruled that the EPA can't just arbitrarily reclassify items as pollutants so that they can regulate them under the Clean Air Act.

It's still constitutional to regulate Greenhouse Gases; it's just that Congress is going to have to pass a law specifically listing them, and offer specific guidance, e.g. xyz parts per million; rather than legislators shrugging their hands and letting EPA use Chevron and their regulatory powers pre-WVA v EPA to do it without being forced to put it to a vote which puts them on the record.

THE PLANET IS SAVED, REJOICE.

LINK

Throughout the landmark climate law, passed this month, is language written specifically to address the Supreme Court’s justification for reining in the E.P.A., a ruling that was one of the court’s most consequential of the term. The new law amends the Clean Air Act, the country’s bedrock air-quality legislation, to define the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels as an “air pollutant.”

That language, according to legal experts as well as the Democrats who worked it into the legislation, explicitly gives the E.P.A. the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and to use its power to push the adoption of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.

“The language, we think, makes pretty clear that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act,” said Senator Tom Carper, the Delaware Democrat who led the movement to revise the law. With the new law, he added, there are “no ifs, ands or buts” that Congress has told federal agencies to tackle carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping emissions from power plants, automobiles and oil wells.

What climate law?

Oh, just the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

[Tribble]

This is a turn-up for the books:

Kansas has voted to protect abortion rights in its constitution by rejecting an amendment that would have allowed lawmakers to tighten restrictions of ban abortion outright.

It is the first US state to put abortion rights to a vote since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in June, the 1973 ruling that established the right to safe and legal abortion at any point before a foetus can survive outside the womb, for nearly five decades.

The vote was the first test of popular opinion since the Supreme Court's decision, and was unexpected in a deeply conservative and typically Republican state.

“This vote makes clear what we know: the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion and should have the right to make their own health care decisions,” President Joe Biden said in a statement.

After calling on Congress to “restore the protections of Roe” in federal law, Biden added, "the American people must continue to use their voices to protect the right to women’s health care, including abortion.”

On Wednesday, the president will sign an executive order aimed at making it easier for women to travel between states to access abortions.

He will issue a directive that will allow states that have not outlawed abortion to apply for specific Medicaid waivers that would, in effect, help them treat women who have travelled from another state.

The vote provided a warning to Republicans who had celebrated the Supreme Court ruling and have been enacting abortion bans or near-bans in nearly half the states.

“Kansans bluntly rejected anti-abortion politicians’ attempts at creating a reproductive police state,” said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity.

”Today’s vote was a powerful rebuke and a promise of the mounting resistance," she added.

A 'yes' vote on the ballot would have removed from the state constitution the right to an abortion and put the issue in the hands of the state lawmakers.

The 'no' vote means no changes will be made, keeping abortion rights enshrined in the state constitution.

Mallory Carroll, spokesperson for the national anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, described the vote as “a huge disappointment” for the movement and called on anti-abortion candidates to “go on the offensive.”

She added that after the Supreme Court ruling, “We must work exponentially harder to achieve and maintain protections for unborn children and their mothers.”

“This outcome is a temporary setback, and our dedicated fight to value women and babies is far from over," said Emily Massey, a spokesperson for the pro-amendment campaign.

Kristy Winter, a teacher, voted against the measure and brought her 16-year-old daughter with her to her polling place.

“I want her to have the same right to do what she feels is necessary, mostly in the case of rape or incest,” she said. “I want her to have the same rights my mother has had most of her life.”

Abortion advocates predicted the anti-abortion groups and lawmakers behind the ballot would push quickly for an abortion ban if voters approved it.

Before the vote, the measure’s supporters refused to say whether they would pursue a ban as they appealed to voters who supported both some restrictions and some access to abortion.

The Kansas vote is the start of what could be a long-running series of legal battles playing out where lawmakers are more conservative on abortion than governors or state courts.

Kentucky will vote in November on whether to add language similar to Kansas’ proposed amendment to its state constitution.

Meanwhile, Vermont will decide in November whether to add an abortion rights provision to its constitution. A similar question is likely headed to the November ballot in Michigan.

After the decision, clinics in some states stopped performing abortions almost immediately.
Some states had unenforced laws predating 1973 that were able to come back to life immediately once the ruling was reversed.

Others had so-called trigger bans that were able to be quickly enforced.

States which have tightened restrictions or effectively banned abortion since Roe v Wade was overturned include Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Some states still offering the procedure, including Minnesota, are seeing a surge of out-of-state patients coming to their abortion clinics.

Some pro-choice states also offered women from states where abortion is now banned support to travel to a state where it is legal.

What do you think are the odds that the state government will at some point just ignore this and pass laws banning abortions anyways?