ANS -- Conversation on what will happen if the SC divides us into free states and forced birth states.

Here is a conversation from FaceBook. It's on what is likely to happen if the Supreme Court does away with Roe v. Wade.   It's conversations like this that make me think FB can be worthwhile.

It's also conversations like this that make me wonder about people who say FB is all kitten pictures.  

--Kim

Sara Robinson

13c05Sp3onl00asthoem9dhh  · 

Hillary Clinton · View shop

Dec3Semibe1ct1rs9 th1 at 96h:c4e56 AMa3  · 

End of story.

1919

22 Comments

Like

Comment

Share

22 Comments

• Brad Templeton

  OK, so just what are we prepared to do so this can't happen? Because the easiest of the various paths available to us -- that people had simply shown up to vote for her in slightly greater numbers, defeating Trump -- wasn't something we could pull off or she could pull off. Indeed, she had more ability to stop this than probably any other human being, the bar wasn't high, and she failed and we failed. So it's nice to say we will not allow it, but what are we actually going to do?

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 13h
  Hide 11 Replies

  • Sara Robinson

    Brad Templeton Brad, I just came off the national NARAL board after six years, which gives me some perspective here. We've known this was coming since Trump was elected, and were assured of it when Ginsburg died, so the movement strategists have been on it.

    Lots of moving parts here. There's been an all-out effort the last couple of years to nail down the "states of refuge" where abortion rights are strong. There's been lots of quiet success at cleaning up old laws that would complicate the security of the right if Roe fell. The upshot is that we've got 15+ states that will supply services.

    The next effort -- now underway -- is to beef up the transit networks that will ferry women from forced-birth states to free ones. The free market is going to be a huge help here: I imagine that within a month or two of Roe falling, Nevada and New Jersey (both of which already rely on vice-based economies) will be offering cheap all-inclusive weekend packages with airfare, hotel, and clinic. Other states may follow suit. At the same time, volunteer networks are already in place for private transport and lodging in private homes. Non-profit fundraising is already being channeled toward abortion funds that will pay for women to take these trips. All this infrastructure is being built.

    The political battles in the short term will also happen at the state level. NARAL abolished its state affiliates in May, which was taking those troops off the field at the exact moment we needed them. (I didn't approve.) But I doubt the ability of most of the legacy groups (save CRR, which is doing the most critical work right now) to fight this battle. It's time for a new generation of women to form new organizations around new social and legal narratives that have emerged over the past decade.

    Long-term, we'll need Congress to pass a law. The backlash if Roe falls next spring may be strong enough to get a Dem Congress and president to accomplish this. The next law cannot be based in a right to privacy; it will need to assert other rights. That legal framework is also already falling into place, thanks to the work of the Center for Reproductive Rights and others.

    6

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 12h
  • Brad Templeton

    Sara Robinson Yes, I think the transit approach is a good one. It's simple, and direct, and just costs money. I recall doing the math myself on the number of abortions in anti-abortion states, the number of flights or in some cases bus trips needed, and the total cost was easily within the means of pro-choice donors (including a small number of wealth ones but definitely the large base of middle class ones if they actually care.) The nice thing is there's no fight, no debate and (maybe) nothing anti-abortionists can do about it. I say maybe because of course the Texas law tries to penalize aiding women who travel to get an abortion. One hopes the states rights folks don't want it possible for states to punish you for what you do in other states.

    2

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 12h
  • David Clow

    Sara Robinson Thank you for this. This is the first time since before the 14th Amendment where there were, in effect, different definitions of a person and a citizen depending on a line on a map; and that led to disaster. We won't see armies in the field here but we can't miss that they're prepared to shred the Constitution and even to use domestic terrorism in a cause they insist is above the law. Bizarre as it sounds the best defense, that is, the one that might be more effective politically, is the Commerce Clause. If what I'm hearing about the questioning in the Court is indicative I'm astonished at the narrowness of the way they're deciding this. In the end this will be a mistake for them, but it'll take a Constitutional Amendment comprehensively defining and guaranteeing the right to privacy to make this right, and that's a long fight.

    1

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 11h
  • Sara Robinson

    Brad Templeton We're already seeing the big donor money moving from national lobbying and advocacy to the state-by-state fights and building the transit network infrastructure.

    I also neglected to address the major technological shift that will factor into all of this, which is the fact that over the past 2-3 years, doctors are coming to accept that the abortion pill can be self-administered. Ideally, every woman who doesn't want to become pregnant in the next year would just be handed a pack of these at her annual exam. (It's not hard to imagine that Nevada pharmacies will sell them off the shelf, and people will bring them home as souvenirs of their Vegas vacations, just to have on hand.) The right has passed a lot of state laws preventing the pills from being prescribed via telemedicine. Everybody, including doctors, is starting to realize that getting them out of the hands of doctors entirely may be the right way to go here.

    2

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 9h
  • Sara Robinson

    David Clow This is the first of several rights that are hung on the disputed right to privacy. The Shitty Six are out to gut all of them -- contraception, all gay rights, all of it. So this is just the first salvo in what promises to be a long assault on the rights of a great many Americans. Stare decisis be damned.

    The upside of this is that the number of people who stand to lose is big enough to create a formidable political coalition, capable of making HUGE waves.

    3

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 9h
  • Sara Robinson

    Brad Templeton As for crossing state lines: When the Texas law passed, there was concern that it would allow anyone to sue anyone -- including non-Texans -- in Texas courts for aiding and abetting abortion. If I hosted a Texas woman in my home while she was getting care in Seattle, for example, I could be sued.

    But they've walked that back. It's not hard to imagine WA or CA, strong states of refuge, from suing Texas for legal harassment of their residents -- even people who've never set foot in Texas. I've seen good analysis suggesting that this violates the commerce clause in all kinds of ways, too.

    1

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 9h
  • David Clow

    Sara Robinson I see that too, and I suspect that no matter how deep in their rabbit holes they go, they'd have to hear the anger outside. They're trying to reverse history here and if there's good news, it's that the GOP is going to take serious damage from it. They call the economy of 2021 the "Cultural Leviathan". They're too late to try fighting inclusiveness and diversity on their Seven Mountains. Really what I see already is just belligerence and spite in their defeatism. I hope the Democrats have a clue.

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 8h
  • Brad Templeton

    Sara RobinsonSara RobinsonSara Robinson I agree and hope they could not stop it. They will try. But while it is not as satisfying as women being able to control their bodies in their home state, there is a satisfaction in the fact that it's hard to stop. It says, "you fought for years, you allied with immoral men like Trump, you have your all, and you didn't stop many abortions, all you did was make money for some airlines." Of course many of them never cared, they just wanted a good wedge issue. Possibly deprive them of that too

    1

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 7h
    •  · 
      Edited
  • PJ Manney

    Brad Templeton The rich and powerful are never deprived of abortion access. Never were and never will be.

    2

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 5h
  • Brad Templeton

    PJ Manney To be sure. The anti-abortion movement consists of many. Some are those who deeply hold it to be baby murder. Pretty much all the arguments of our side are meaningless to them. They are not enough to ban abortion. Another large group is just doing it because their tribe does it, it was taken as a deliberate wedge issue -- abortion is evil, and you better think so if you are in our tribe, and look, the other tribe does it and they are evil and you have to vote for us to stop them. It's still hard to defeat this faction too but more possible. (After all, 50 years ago they didn't care and the protestant evangelical community didn't really oppose abortion.) For now the option may be the airlift, though I hold this hope that if their efforts are shown to be futile, perhaps some would give them up. But often that backfires so this is hard.

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 4h
  • Sara Robinson

    PJ Manney Great point. This conversation is *always* about underclass women. Forced pregnancy is the primary way we ensure that they will never be able to escape poverty and economic exploitation, and that their poverty will be generational. Early pregnancy, in particular, becomes part of family cultures -- the biggest factor influencing teen motherhood is having a mother or sister who was a teen mother. If we get girls to 20 without getting pregnant, their entire lives transform -- as do the lives of their children.

    1

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 4h

  Active

  Write a reply…

  
  
• Colin Summers

  It is amazing in the long and storied history of our nation that no one has ever assassinated a Supreme Court justice.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 12h
  • Sara Robinson

    And that's unlikely to change now. Domestic terrorism in the US over the past 20 years has been overwhelmingly right-wing. (Some years, it's ALL come from the right.)

    That's their gig, not ours. And they can have it.

    2

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 12h
  • Brad Templeton

    Colin Summers So, if you were President and that happened, would you take "advantage" of it and change the polarity of the judge? How would you feel if another President went the other way? I would hope any President woudl say, "we are not gong to let this work." Expand and pack the court long before being willing to let this work.

    2

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 12h
    •  · 
      Edited
  • Sara Robinson

    I doubt Biden is going to "change the polarity" of a judge who's been carefully groomed by the Federalist Society for 30 years for this exact moment.

    The ensing outrage will certainly fuel new calls for filibuster reform, so Congress can take action next year. (The fact that this will all unfold in an election year is going to make things easier for Dems and harder for the GOP in the '22 elections. The nation will be PISSED.) There may even be momentum for another conversation on court expansion.

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 12h
  • Brad Templeton

    Sara Robinson What I meant about the polarity is how would you feel if Ginsberg had been assassinated by an anti-abortionist rather than dying of natural causes. Would you approve of your side doing the same thing? I would hope not.

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 12h
    •  · 
      Edited
  • Sara Robinson

    Of course not. A lot of us would love Brett Kavanaugh to drop off the face of the earth tomorrow, but he still goes home to his wife and kids mostly unmolested. And will continue to.

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 9h

  Active

  Write a reply…

  
  
• Stephen Benson

  the first thing they need to do to make this the bridge to far is to get rid of the filibuster. these judges are reading the news. they know how much furor and anger will result from them doing this. they will do it anyway. the court needs to be expanded. while the filibuster remains that cannot happen. it's long past time.

  2

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 11h
• Sara Robinson

  BTW: I also anticipate that volunteer private pilots will be part of that transport network. There are already many other ways pilots volunteer their planes to ferry emergency materials, take rural sick people to urban hospitals for care, move shelter pets from high-kill areas to places pets are in demand, and so on. Given the reach and strength of the female pilot sorority, it's not hard to imagine that we'll very quickly organize to transport women for abortions as well.

  10

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 9h
• Teri Chambers

  Your comment about a weekend package to Vegas produced some warped ideas- schedule your 2 for 1 divorce & abortion getaway. Or have an Elvis impersonator do the abortion. 

  2

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 8h
  • Sara Robinson

    Teri Chambers Oh, yeah. That scenario gets really weird, really fast.

    1

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 6h
    
    

    Log in or sign up to view See posts, photos and more on Facebook.

    
    
    
    

Active

Write a comment…