Why the Dems will only get a marginal boost after the SC strikes Roe v Wade(IMHO).

[mjg1]

I don't believe this Supreme Court ruling will actually be much of a boost for democrats, as some are speculating.

1. The ruling will leave abortion right as a State issue and not a outright national ban.....not YET! This means abortions will be still be performed in certain states, which gives women/people of means to travel and get the procedure. Leaving the burden to the poor and the poor are a historical high non-voting portion of the population.

2. Abortion so restricted in many red states already, it's not much of a change anyway. I believe there is only abortion clinic in Mississippi now, so it's really not much of a change. Once again who is this affecting, poor blacks, poor Hispanics and poor whites, is that going drive independents and undecided out in droves...I don't think so.

3. Apathy, way too many people in America just don't care and don't vote. Even though they might not want a abortion ban, but they still won't be engaged in the political system. In 2016 Trump said, "he was only going to appoint justices that are going to overturn Roe." Yet I heard so many people say(mostly young black folks), "they(Clinton & Trump) are both the same and it really doesn't matter who wins." Then there was the "Bernie or bust" crowd, on the far-left, that helped Trump get elected and appoint three right-wing judges. They are so screwed-up, they just want to complain and punish dems for not being far-left wackos.

Now if the SC decides to ban it on a national basis, all bets are off, but all indications are it's going to be left up the states. Let's face it, many in America expect this kind of restrictions in red states anyway. Hell some red states are arguing and debating the justification of flying the confederate battle flag. These people are still longing for the days Antebellum to return!

 

[danmand]

I would tend to agree. What is the big ballyhoo?
Access to abortion will be un-equal, which is clearly unjust and dangerous for the poor women.
But in USA access to health care in general is un-Equal, which is unjust and dangerous for all poor people.
Inaccess to treatment for diabetes is as dangerous as inaccess to medically safe abortions. (Many studies have shown that the number of abortions are independent of access to medical care)

 

[nottyboi]

Biden has sucked so badly, the Dems are fucked.

 

[Frankfooter]

I don't believe this Supreme Court ruling will actually be much of a boost for democrats, as some are speculating.

1. The ruling will leave abortion right as a State issue and not a outright national ban.....not YET! This means abortions will be still be performed in certain states, which gives women/people of means to travel and get the procedure. Leaving the burden to the poor and the poor are a historical high non-voting portion of the population.

2. Abortion so restricted in many red states already, it's not much of a change anyway. I believe there is only abortion clinic in Mississippi now, so it's really not much of a change. Once again who is this affecting, poor blacks, poor Hispanics and poor whites, is that going drive independents and undecided out in droves...I don't think so.

3. Apathy, way too many people in America just don't care and don't vote. Even though they might not want a abortion ban, but they still won't be engaged in the political system. In 2016 Trump said, "he was only going to appoint justices that are going to overturn Roe." Yet I heard so many people say(mostly young black folks), "they(Clinton & Trump) are both the same and it really doesn't matter who wins." Then there was the "Bernie or bust" crowd, on the far-left, that helped Trump get elected and appoint three right-wing judges. They are so screwed-up, they just want to complain and punish dems for not being far-left wackos.

Now if the SC decides to ban it on a national basis, all bets are off, but all indications are it's going to be left up the states. Let's face it, many in America expect this kind of restrictions in red states anyway. Hell some red states are arguing and debating the justification of flying the confederate battle flag. These people are still longing for the days Antebellum to return!

26 states are likely to ban abortion now.

69% of americans are against banning abortion.

 

[jcpro]

Because poll after poll for decades have shown that there's no appetite for unrestricted abortion.

 

[jalimon]

26 states are likely to ban abortion now.

69% of americans are against banning abortion.

It's by far the poorest state with minimal social service that are banning abortion. They want to make sure they keep living in poverty and mediocrity.

 

[Frankfooter]

Because poll after poll for decades have shown that there's no appetite for unrestricted abortion.

Who is talking about 'unrestricted' abortion, whatever that is.

 

[Valcazar]

I don't think OP's logic is particularly bad and I think the people saying it unleashes a monster wave of pro-Democratic Party voting are just engaging in wishful thinking.
That said, it might be bigger than he is thinking.

1. "It is just being sent back to the states" is how they are going to spin it, yes. But the States have already lined up their even more restrictive laws. So the "no big deal" factor you are thinking of may not sell.
2. "It is already bad in red states so nothing changes" also doesn't really work. Those states have laws lined up to make it worse, and a bunch of states have trigger laws that will switch them over the moment the ruling happens.

The issue with 1 and 2 is what leads into 3. "People don't care and don't vote". That's true. But there have been years of people saying this was coming and most people not paying attention - now it is here. And all at once the creeping small changes turn into a whole bunch of states with new laws all at once. All of a sudden it goes from background noise to foreground. Will that be enough to make people pay attention?
Maybe. I don't know. I can easily see people buying the whole "it is just sent back to the states, you shouldn't really care" angle and slipping back into apathy. But these sorts of things happen "very slowly, then very quickly" and this looks like it is the shift to the "very quickly" phase. That might break through to people and then who knows how strong the actual reaction will be.

 

[mjg1]

I don't think OP's logic is particularly bad and I think the people saying it unleashes a monster wave of pro-Democratic Party voting are just engaging in wishful thinking.
That said, it might be bigger than he is thinking.

1. "It is just being sent back to the states" is how they are going to spin it, yes. But the States have already lined up their even more restrictive laws. So the "no big deal" factor you are thinking of may not sell.
2. "It is already bad in red states so nothing changes" also doesn't really work. Those states have laws lined up to make it worse, and a bunch of states have trigger laws that will switch them over the moment the ruling happens.

The issue with 1 and 2 is what leads into 3. "People don't care and don't vote". That's true. But there have been years of people saying this was coming and most people not paying attention - now it is here. And all at once the creeping small changes turn into a whole bunch of states with new laws all at once. All of a sudden it goes from background noise to foreground. Will that be enough to make people pay attention?
Maybe. I don't know. I can easily see people buying the whole "it is just sent back to the states, you shouldn't really care" angle and slipping back into apathy. But these sorts of things happen "very slowly, then very quickly" and this looks like it is the shift to the "very quickly" phase. That might break through to people and then who knows how strong the actual reaction will be.

You could be right and I hope this will produce a large wave of democratic support. I just don't see it, especially since the SC will leave this up to the states and not institute a national ban. Society and people are so self-centered now, it's all about what affects them only and the greater good be damned. The way I see it, is that the people who recognized what voting republican could mean for pro-choice rights, are already voting and have been doing so. One of the reasons I voted for Hillary in '16 is because I had feeling Trump would only appoint far right judges, to appease the Christian right.

 

[mjg1]

26 states are likely to ban abortion now.

69% of americans are against banning abortion.

I believe that 69% is against a national ban, which this ruling will not be....for now. The GOP and their right-wing judges have been restricting abortion for years now and they still keep getting elected.

 

[Frankfooter]

I believe that 69% is against a national ban, which this ruling will not be....for now. The GOP and their right-wing judges have been restricting abortion for years now and they still keep getting elected.

69% are against banning it period.

 

[Darts]

WaPo columnist says media has been too biased in reporting on pro-life movement (msn.com)

 

[Valcazar]

You could be right and I hope this will produce a large wave of democratic support.

I hope it would to, but I am not optimistic. It might also depend what we think "large" means. Your "large" might be my small or vice versa.

One of the reasons I voted for Hillary in '16 is because I had feeling Trump would only appoint far right judges, to appease the Christian right.

Maybe because Trump kept saying he would only appoint far right judges and all justices he appointed to the SC would be picked because they were in favor of overturning Roe v Wade?
He didn't exactly hide the plan.

 

[jcpro]

Bill Maher pushes back at pro-choice alarmists: 'We're not going back to 1973' if Roe v Wade is overturned

"Real Time" host Bill Maher kicked off his panel discussion about the abortion debate Friday by sharing the surprising things he learned following the leaked Supreme Court majority opinion draft on Roe v. Wade.

www.foxnews.com

 

[mjg1]

Bill Maher pushes back at pro-choice alarmists: 'We're not going back to 1973' if Roe v Wade is overturned

"Real Time" host Bill Maher kicked off his panel discussion about the abortion debate Friday by sharing the surprising things he learned following the leaked Supreme Court majority opinion draft on Roe v. Wade.

www.foxnews.com

Without a doubt the Christian-right will seek a national ban on abortions. Then they will go after same-sex marriage, now let's ask the republican senator from Indiana on interracial marriage.

Republican Senator Says Supreme Court Should Have Never Legalized Interracial Marriage

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said interracial marriage should be illegal federally and left to the states, before walking back his comments.

www.rollingstone.com

I know Bill Maher thinks he knows everything, just ask him, but just doing a few comedy shows in red states doesn't make him an expert. I was born and raised in a Christian fundamentalist church, I know how they think and what they want.

 

[Leimonis]

Without a doubt the Christian-right will seek a national ban on abortions. Then they will go after same-sex marriage, now let's ask the republican senator from Indiana on interracial marriage.

seems like a tall order...do you think the right can attack same sex marriage and still be elected?

also, Maher said. "If you like babies, then you're pro-life and if you're pro-women, you're pro-choice."
Is that what pro life actually is though? They like babies? Because some women say that it’s to control women.

 

[bver_hunter]

Bill Maher pushes back at pro-choice alarmists: 'We're not going back to 1973' if Roe v Wade is overturned

"Real Time" host Bill Maher kicked off his panel discussion about the abortion debate Friday by sharing the surprising things he learned following the leaked Supreme Court majority opinion draft on Roe v. Wade.

www.foxnews.com

The same Bill Maher who slammed those obsessed with the Transgenders:

Bill Maher taunts woke mob's obsession with trans issues

In his opening monologue, Maher discussed the landmark abortion case, but the talk show host couldn't resist taking a jab at transgender people and their allies with a joke about pronouns.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[jcpro]

Without a doubt the Christian-right will seek a national ban on abortions. Then they will go after same-sex marriage, now let's ask the republican senator from Indiana on interracial marriage.

Republican Senator Says Supreme Court Should Have Never Legalized Interracial Marriage

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said interracial marriage should be illegal federally and left to the states, before walking back his comments.

www.rollingstone.com

I know Bill Maher thinks he knows everything, just ask him, but just doing a few comedy shows in red states doesn't make him an expert. I was born and raised in a Christian fundamentalist church, I know how they think and what they want.

And I too can seek a ban for this or that- Brussel sprouts, for example. It doesn't mean that my fellow citizens agree. Some even enjoy the vile thing. The voters will have a say and an accommodation will be reached that, of course will vary from state to state.

 

[Valcazar]

Without a doubt the Christian-right will seek a national ban on abortions.

They've already been discussing it as a strategy. They probably won't put the bill into play until they have the trifecta, but they might put it in after taking the house and or senate in the midterms as a statement of intent.

 

[mjg1]

They've already been discussing it as a strategy. They probably won't put the bill into play until they have the trifecta, but they might put it in after taking the house and or senate in the midterms as a statement of intent.

I agree 100%.