- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
The states’ rights case for determining abortion access — let the people decide — falters on the fact that in many states, the people cannot shape their legislature to their liking. Packed and split into districts designed to preserve Republican control, voters cannot actually dislodge anti-abortion Republican lawmakers. A pro-choice majority may exist, but only as a shadow: present but without substance in government.
You must log in or register to comment.
NYT once again leveragingthe “opinion” section to pretend that they aren’t helping republiQan fascists at every turn.
Yeah the opinion section is great (and horrible, because b0tH SiDeZ). But the actual fucking news articles are jam-packed with minimizing, weaselly words, both-sidesing, normalization of criminality, and a frankly incomprehensible inability to just say the actual fucking truth.
Get fucked NYT. Wring a few more “her emails” out of the horse race why don’t ya.
“FBI finds no clear link to russia” ONE DAY before the election that put an obvious russian asset in the white house.
Remember that, you fucking bastards?
…that they’re upset about the low military enrollment numbers. They need a bigger class of poor people to exploit for war bucks.
It’s far nore about women having rights than that, they see women’s rights as the core problem that stuff like that are just symptoms of.
The immigration, education, and abortion fights are all about power and control, and that can probably be extended to several other political topics.
I’m saying they don’t want women to have rights, so they can be brood mares for the state.
Honestly I don’t think it’s as thought out as that, I think they just want things like spousal rape and child sexual abuse laws to be undone.
You have to remember that a lot of this is being fueled by incels of one type or another, these are dudes that hate women because of ex-wives, hate women because they can’t get laid, hate women because they age out of being the young girls they are attracted to, hate women because they aren’t the domestic slaves they were before Susan B. Anthony helped change things.
I’m sure some of them are thinking very similar to how you think they are, but the majority just seem to want to own women and minorities, and Trad wife/Pick Me women think they will get to be Serena Joy, as if that’s some kinda good thing.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The next day, as if answering a captain’s call to fire from the line, the Republican-led Arizona Supreme Court, in an uncanny coincidence, revived a 160-year-old abortion ban, with no exceptions for either rape or incest.
It does not escape my attention that this law owes its rebirth to an effort by Doug Ducey, then the governor, to expand the Arizona Supreme Court’s membership from five to seven justices.
One of them, Clint Bolick, is a longtime conservative legal activist and the author of “David’s Hammer: The Case for an Activist Judiciary.” He represents a type of judge whom the legal scholars Robert L. Tsai and Mary Ziegler call a “movement jurist,” defined as “someone who is socially embedded in movement-aligned networks outside of the formal legal system and is willing to use a judge’s tools of the trade in the service of a movement’s goals.” (Another Ducey-appointed justice, William G. Montgomery, once said that Planned Parenthood was “responsible for the greatest generational genocide known to man.” He recused himself from this case.)
Anti-abortion activists are also trying to conjure a past, in the form of the long-dormant Comstock Act, that gives government the power to regulate the sexual lives of its citizens.
As Moira Donegan notes in a column for The Guardian, “Comstock has come to stand in, in the right-wing imagination, for a virtuous, hierarchically ordered past that can be restored in a sexually repressive and tyrannically misogynistic future.”
It does not curate a favorable electorate or frantically burrow itself into our counter-majoritarian institutions; it competes for power on an even playing field, assured of its appeal and certain of its ability to win.
The original article contains 997 words, the summary contains 276 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Both the federal courts and the Arizona Supreme Court have conjured a past that smothers the right to bodily autonomy. Anti-abortion activists are also trying to conjure a past, in the form of the long-dormant Comstock Act, that gives government the power to regulate the sexual lives of its citizens. As Moira Donegan notes in a column for The Guardian, “Comstock has come to stand in, in the right-wing imagination, for a virtuous, hierarchically ordered past that can be restored in a sexually repressive and tyrannically misogynistic future.
I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that the seal of the Comstock’s New York Society for the Suppression of Vice gleefully features a person being thrown into a dungeon, and a book burning.
