Monday Morning Dobbs in America

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonder and Home. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast.

Related Post Roulette

60 Responses

  1. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    California and Vermont are putting forward ballot initiatives in the fall which are meant to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right in their respective state constitutions. California’s proposed amendment explicitly mentions abortion. Vermont’s proposed amendment does not but discusses reproductive freedom/autonomy.Report

  2. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    Its one poll, but still:

    https://twitter.com/billscher/status/1541385731972669443
    Congressional generic ballot, Marist

    April
    Republican 47%
    Democratic 44%

    June
    Democratic 48%
    Republican 41%

    A 10-point swing to the Democrats post-DobbsReport

    • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      What has to happen now is democrats have to take Thomas’s hunting list and make it real as a campaign issue. Not by obscure court case names but actual real world situations. I doubt they will have the stomach for it.Report

  3. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    American University School of Law launched an investigation into 8 students for a private chat criticizing the Dobbs decision because it apparently threatened the “sincere religious beliefs” of a Greek Orthodox, “moderate” conservative Republican: https://www.thefire.org/american-university-launches-bogus-harassment-investigation-into-students-who-criticized-leaked-supreme-court-abortion-ruling-in-private-group-chat/Report

  4. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    The Dobbs world could be interesting. I wouldn’t be surprised to see more geographic sorting take place. The “blue and red” state thing was always mostly myth, or a misunderstanding of the partisan split between urban and rural areas. Rural areas tend to have much lower mobility, but if we started to see more moderate/conservative cities and liberal cities, that could make these state colors more permanent. Of course, all but the worst candidates can get 40% of the vote if they’re in the two main parties, and the worst candidates can lose even in a strongly one-party state. I mean, not DC, which is the purest example of all-urban no-rural, but anywhere else.

    I actually think a stronger blue and red geographic divide could alleviate some of our national tensions, if there are more rulings like Dobbs that return control to the states.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      How do we stay one nation under God with liberty and justice for all if a group of states gets to take liberty from people on the basis of gender or sexual activity or race? Because that’s what you (and Justice Thomas) are talking about – one group of states where abortion is safe and legal, one where it’s not. One group where you can get contraception and one where you can’t. One group where gay marriage and gay sex are legal and one where it’s not.

      Is that what you really want?Report

      • Pinky in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        I want one where abortion is illegal and states have the right to determine their laws. Given the moral climate, I’ll settle for one where states have the right to determine their laws including on abortion. I don’t want everything Thomas wants (probably), and I don’t think Thomas wants to forbid contraception, but neither does he accept the reasoning in the Griswold decision. In those last two things I agree.

        I think it may be easier for us to stay one nation if the states have greater independence. I say this for a bunch of reasons, including that that was the original intent. The Founders surveyed history and didn’t see any large democracies. They wanted a coalition of small democracies who worked together to protect the coalition.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Pinky
          Ignored
          says:

          Much of what Red America is doing is not working to protect the coalition. It’s about keeping power to a certain group and screwing everything else. Many of those states aren’t democracies any more either, what with trigger laws creating total bans in states that still poll as wanting some safe legal abortion access.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            And you are free to believe that and vote according to your beliefs. You can move to a state where people think more like you, and you can look down on the thinking of people in other states. I think it would be even better if the people you voted for in more local elections had a stronger say in the laws you’re required to follow.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
          Ignored
          says:

          That you say you “would settle”” for allowing blue states to allow abortion gives the game away.

          What if you didn’t have to settle, if Republicans had the power to impose a ban by force?

          We never see Republicans respect other people’s rights voluntarily. The moment they get the power to impose their views, they take it.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            I’m not giving anything away. I’m clear about my beliefs. I’m sure you have beliefs that you can accept some variation from for the sake of democracy. I mean, I hope so. A person would go crazy if they weren’t able to accept some differences from their positions.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              But, the moment Republicans have the trifecta and pass a nationwide ban you’d support it.

              The “settling” is entirely tactical not principled.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                There are a lot of issues I don’t require to be resolved at the federal level. If states want to follow their voters’ desires, that’s fine by me except where life or liberty are threatened. I consider abortion to be a matter of life, so it’s in a special category for me.

                As a matter of political reality, I don’t believe that the country would support a broad restriction on abortion. I don’t believe that McConnell would support legislation for a broad ban, although I think he may submit it for the spectacle. But I see the pro-life movement right now as happy that they’re finally allowed to make gains. They’ve been making the hearts-and-minds gains for decades, but not able to influence meaningful legislation.

                People compare abortion to gun rights, and I think the comparison is apt in one way: both sides may want everything, but they’re willing to jostle in the middle because they know they don’t have a majority.Report

            • DensityDuck in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              ” A person would go crazy if they weren’t able to accept some differences from their positions.”

              The thing is, Chip can’t accept differences from his position, and he honestly believes that nobody else can either.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah if there’s one thing that distinguishes Republicans, its their embrace of diversity and tolerance and accepting of other peoples’ choices.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I read an interesting essay on trust and micro-defections and macro-cooperation. It got me thinkin’.

                Report

              • Pinky in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ve found that Chip’s comments increasingly sound like conspiracy theory, where every item is intrinsically linked to all the others, because the bad guys are behind them all. That would make everything into one position. I don’t know if that’s how he really thinks though.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        The rest of us are visiting.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      Rural areas tend to have much lower mobility…

      A few years ago I was playing with the county-to-county migration data that the IRS made available. The two dominant patterns that I saw were movement between metro areas and (smaller and much more intrastate) movement from rural to metro.Report

      • Pinky in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        I could believe that. There probably isn’t a lot of interstate movement from rural to rural. If there were, we would see geographic sorting much sooner.Report

        • Slade the Leveller in reply to Pinky
          Ignored
          says:

          Rural population is <20% of the total. It's getting to be a numerical blip.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Slade the Leveller
            Ignored
            says:

            Which is why they support such radical policies and politicians. It’s essentially a big temper tantrum with generational consequences.Report

            • Chris in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              I do not find it unsurprising that radical, and in particular radical reactionary politics are common in rural areas, because rural areas do tend to get royally fished — in health care, education, infrastructure, etc. — by mainstream politicians from both major parties.

              I will say that, within the American left, there’s a small but vocal strain of socialism advocating for increased support for rural communities (largely influenced by Freire and other Latin American socialists), but they don’t have much influence in the larger left groups, which are dominated mostly by urban, education, middle class people who don’t pay much attention to rural issues, so a radical rural left to counter the influence of the radical right is unlikely to emerge anytime soon.

              Aside from internet access, Democratic and Republican rural politics are mostly outdated or focused largely on cultural issues, so in other words., not actually helping anyone.Report

  5. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    A lot of people I know who never discuss politics are very angry at this decision. I don’t think the school prayer decision from today is going to help.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      Again, unless democrats can make the link to voting for republicans clear -‘and make it stick for the months until the general this won’t be the salve we might think it is.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      If there is a pony in all this manure, it’s that the right-wing can’t resist ripping off the mask and screaming the quiet parts.

      While the reasonable Republicans are blandly assuring us of their good intentions, we always can rely on the actual Republicans to go on Twitter to issue spittle flecked pronouncements about what they really want.Report

  6. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    Many political normies seem genuinely shocked at the Dobbs decision. They should be dismayed at the decision, it is a very bad decision but it seems to come to surprise to most people even though the early draft of the decision was leaked. The non-reactionary majority just seems flat-footed. This is one way the extremists can win power. They catch people off guard even when announcing their moves in advance because most people really don’t believe that somebody can want such crazy things.Report

  7. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out:

    The prosecutors said enforcing abortion bans would also “hinder our ability to hold perpetrators accountable, take resources away from the enforcement of serious crime, and inevitably lead to the retraumatization and criminalization of victims of sexual violence.”

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/dozens-elected-prosecutors-say-will-refuse-prosecute-abortion-care-rcna35305?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR00uLbFRJrw4uOiPabx9JNoVy40OjW8DdNDwcpAV4QxSAvUQRE9IGwrEvEReport

    • Chris in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      I believe Louisiana (or another state) was trying to add an amendment to their law that would push the prosecution up to the state/AG if local prosecutors refused to prosecute. I assume other states will try to do that as well. I am not a lawyer, so I have no idea how kosher that is from a legal standpoint, though the Dobbs ruling is the latest in an increasingly long line of decisions showing that legal standards are, er, flexible.Report

  8. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    Overlooked, is that the Congressional Republicans are supporting a ban on all abortions from the moment of conception.
    https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1541472663905910787

    What’s noteworthy about this is that such a law is literally impossible to enforce. The moment of conception can’t be observed or recorded, but only estimated after the fact. And as Cheryl Rofer over at LGM notes, there is no way to determine the difference fertilized egg that fails to develop into a healthy fetus and an abortion.

    But what the law invites, and makes legitimate, is a draconian police state with sweeping surveillance power. Under the power granted to them by this law, any prosecutor or police department can investigate any woman on the most flimsy of pretexts that she might have conceived and induced an abortion.

    The end result is that all women of childbearing age are at all times subject to arbitrary and capricious state punishment. Which, based on the sum total of their party’s stance, seems like the logical desired goal.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      What was is Steve Bannon used to say about flooding the playing field with sh!t so your opponent becomes disoriented and can’t respond to the actual threats? Seems like the media are overwhelmed.Report

  9. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    As part of the online cacophony, there was an APRN out there who tweeted that “I prescribe meds.. I can also choose not to prescribe them. So… from now on.. if you are a white male who votes conservative, your penis needs to ask God for the power to rise. No more Viagra.”

    Big laugh, everyone smile. Stick it to the man! Well, that libs of tik tok account found the tweet and found her hospital and promoted the heck out of it.

    Well, for a few hours, the person was defiant arguing that this was a perfectly fine position to take while, for some reason, her employer said something to the effect of “Hey, this ain’t our practice.”

    Well, just this afternoon, the organization posted this:

    If you are a medical professional, do not tweet anything. If you *MUST* have a personal life social media account, do not tweet about how you are a medical professional. If you *MUST* sometimes mention that you are a medical professional, DO NOT TWEET ABOUT ABUSING THE POWER VESTED IN YOU AS A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.

    Jeez louise.Report

    • PD Shaw in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Election day and here is a nurse doing get out the vote for Mary Miller.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      It’s a stupid thing to say and an awful thing to do, though I’d reckon this was more a pithy expression of anger than an actual admission of guilt. All the same, putting it out there was dumb and ultimately the person reaped what they sewed.Report

  10. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    And yet it is perfectly legal in the US to deny wedding cakes and marriage licenses based on one’s religious beliefs.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      Hey, how about this: I’ll allow hospitals to make race and political affiliation something their providers explicitly consider in their decisions of who receives care, and in return, you’ll accept that bakeries don’t have to bake cakes for same-sex weddings if they’d rather not. Deal?Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      We can deny marriage licenses? I thought we had a court case about that.

      Wait, you’re talking about plural marriage? Yeah, that’s still a problem.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      “And yet” implies a contradiction. But where? (not baiting you, just don’t understand)Report

      • Philip H in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        Viagra is not a medication that’s necessary for routine health. It’s as luxurious as a wedding cake. And it’s legal in the US for a cake baker not to bake cakes based on religious belief. Seems to me it should be equally legal for a doctor not to prescribe Viagra for similar reasons.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          OK, I didn’t get that you were replying to Jaybird.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          I honestly believe that what she said was not illegal and if she withheld Viagra from cis-het white men who voted conservative that she would not be breaking the law.

          I *DO* believe that the Health Center that employed her was well within their rights to say “No, that is not how we practice here” and free her to find employment at a Health Center that centers women and minorities.Report

          • PD Shaw in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            What she said was not illegal, and her apology should be accepted. But if she actually withheld Viagra for those reasons, she and her employer would almost certainly be violating civil rights laws. Hospitals are public accommodations required for centuries to take all comers. Part of the trade-off requiring special licensure to provide medical care is that this restraint on trade cannot be used for discriminatory purposes.

            I think Phil misunderstands the cake cases, they aren’t about religious liberty, but compelled speech. The state cannot compel a baker to make a cake with the words “God Hates Gays.” Sometimes a cake is just a cake though.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to PD Shaw
              Ignored
              says:

              While we agree that what she said was not illegal and that her apology should be accepted, I understand why Sarah Bush Lincoln reached the conclusion they reached.

              If, God forbid, the APRN was involved in a situation where something went wrong, would these tweets surface? If, God forbid, she was adjacent to a Never Event, would these tweets surface?

              In our litigious society, I absolutely understand why SBL made the decision it made, even as I wish we had a society with a lot more wiggle room (that included the whole “bring your whole self to work” thing).

              But you don’t get to joke about giving people you don’t like sub-standard medical care.

              Not in this economy.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                But you don’t get to joke about giving people you don’t like sub-standard medical care.

                The Texas AG and Governor have declared that when it comes to transgender kids, and medical care being given within the standard of care is abuse and should be investigated and punished as such. 13 states are about to declare that they would prefer substandard medical care regarding women’s reproduction by criminalizing standard care.

                The irony is dripping . . . . . corrosive tooReport

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Sadly, Sarah Bush Lincoln isn’t in Texas but, instead, in Illinois.

                Maybe you could push for Pritzker to nudge SBL back in the right direction and re-hire the APRN?

                Here is the contact information for JB Pritzker.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                so you don’t like my analogy? Or analogies in general?

                I was pointing out that there are many places where the standard of care is actively, on purpose, being degraded by government activity. To the pending detriment of a major segment of the population. Its a national trend and this is an additional dat a point that needs to be analyzed within that broader trend.

                Because if its ok for entire states to attempt to permanently suppress care, then why is it different for a single staff member somewhere else to do so?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, I’ll run with your analogy, then.

                I believe that it is well within Sarah Bush Lincoln’s rights to fire the Texas AG and Governor from their board.

                Because if its ok for entire states to attempt to permanently suppress care, then why is it different for a single staff member somewhere else to do so?

                This is a question for SBL rather than for me.

                But if SBL wishes to terminate their relationship with the Texas AG and Governor, I think that they’d be able to.

                Well, I think that if one of them needed medical care of something and SBL was the nearby place that SBL has a policy of non-discrimination so maybe not, like, *100%* termination of any possible relationship.

                But I think it’d be more than appropriate to say “you don’t get to have a professional relationship with us anymore”.

                Legal too, for that matter.Report

            • Greg In Ak in reply to PD Shaw
              Ignored
              says:

              What she said was unethical based on every pro ethics standards i’ve seen. She can not see someone for whatever she wants ethically but singling out people via politics is not cool even if legal.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.