Skip to main content

View Diary: Alito rejected abortion as a right (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I disagree.... (3.50)
    and would like to know what the basis if for your gratuitous slur against "Californian feminists"?
    •  I am (none)
      A fucking California feminists for fuck's sake. Or was until I became a Virginia feminist.

      Californians will care about choice in Kansas in the same way that Americans as a whole care about the Kashmir earthquake. They'll think it really bad, but won't exactly do much to solve the situation. It's nothing specific to California at all. Or feminists. It's simply that restoring choice in Kansas will not be in their fundamental interest.

      Oh sure, there will be lots of song and dance about it. But if you think that the voters of the blue states of this country will demand that red state women have the same ability to get an abortion, I think you are naive.

      •  "California feminists" (none)
        "Californians will care about choice in Kansas in the same way that Americans as a whole care about the Kashmir earthquake"

        Huh.

        Really?

        Being someone who knows a lot of people, both men and women, who are very concerned about the possibility of Roe V Wade going to the state level, where the un-acccountable local legislatures will pander to the conservative moneybags, I can safely say that there are a lot of "California feminists," and "Ohio Feminists" and "Massachusetts feminists" and "Alabama feminists" who know that they will have to fight in each state, because they know that, once the moneybags get done with one state they'll go the next "easier" one, and so on.

        And if Roe V Wade is overturned, there  will bve a lot more shit to go, becuase there is a lot of underlying case law and other court ruling that rely on the unenumerated Right To Privacy.

        As well, the change would put paid to any kind of meaningful federal oversight of the several States' laws,and rum rampant over meaningful tort control of corporations, because that ruling would also have gutted the Full Faith  and Credit clause of the Constitution, by voiding that the sovereignity of the person is not a right that is enforceable over state lines, and that means that the Corporate (in the sense of "business corporation") "person" will not be held accountable over the several states' boundaries for transgressions committed out of state.

        But, I don't think you, sirrah, are aught but a troll, anyways.

        Have fun hiding under your bridge.  ANd don't expect any help from your "liberatrian" or "conservative" friends, because, for them, once you are no longer contributing to them, you don't exist.

        •  Now you are making me angry (4.00)
          You have a user ID of 68639. I have a user ID if 68. I have been around this place a fuck of a lot longer than you. Go take your troll comment and shove it.

          If you think I am a libertarian or a conservative you are out of your fucking mind.  And if you think I WANT abortion to become a state issue, then you need to learn how to fucking read.

          My claim is that we cannot rely on the good intentions of pro-choice people in the blue to ensure adequte choice in the red states because it is not in their direct interest. You are right that the fundies will go state to state. But California will not have its fundamental rights threatened because an overwhelming majority of CA is pro-choice. And that fact will undermine the political force behind blue state resistance to pro-life state-to-state creep.

          It will be a TERRIBLE thing if Roe is overturned precisely because it will become a state issue and because there will not be enough political force emanating from the blue states to ensure that women in the red states are secure in their rights.  Why is this such a difficult point to grasp?  Why is this such an outrageous thing to say??

          There is an anti-war movement at the moment. Frankly, I don't think it is very powerful. Saying that is NOT a slur against it of course. I don't think it is very powerful precisely because there is no conscription in this country. As soon as you get conscription, then all those people who are opposed to the war will be directly threatened. That's when they will take to the streets en masse and make the war unmanageable. I don't see the majority of the California anti-war population making it impossible for poor kids from Kansas to die. Of course they are opposed to it and of course they will vote against it. But there is very little that they can do before their own interests are directly threatened. Sure, some go to Camp Casey or Washington, but that is hardly a mass movement. It's the same point with abortion.

          •  Late to the party (none)
            since it was my  one line comment that started your profanity-laced rant.
            I don't get your point, but maybe that's because I haven't been around "here" as long as you have.
            So, let me get this straight: none of the people now  working to keep Roe are actually California feminists, or feminists from states with liberal pro-choice laws.   The people who care enough to try now  to oppose anti-choice S.Ct.nominees are all from Kansas, Missouri, etc.
            I think you're wrong, and I think you're rude.
      •  politics are compartmentalized by region... (none)
        But the important decisions are made on a state-by-state basis. The women in California are by and large irrelevant to the women in Kansas once the polls open up. Sure we can donate money to causes in other states and add to the general din and roar of protest that would inevitably ensue (and I think we would be more willing to do these things than you imply) but the real impact from such a change is not going to come from what a bunch of liberals in California are saying, it would come from what their friends and daughters and coworkers are saying.

        Even though the long term political ramifications would be grim for the republicans, I hope it doesn't come to that. The only thing that will wake a lot of people up is if the debate stops being an abstraction and starts involving real people dealing with the consequences of abortion being made illegal.

        In fact, in these days of Guantanamo, I hope the same about all of our rights: that we don't have to lose them to finally appreciate them...

        •  Regionalism (none)
          Right. I am sure a lot of money would flow to Kansas from California to support pro-choice initiatives. But there would be no real muscle involved. The only thing that will stop the anti-choice movement in Kansas is a cultural change there occasioned by the realisation that outlawing abortion really sucks because it kills women. And this sea-change will take a very long time to effect. Californian views will be largely irrelevant in the whole process.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site