Would you like some racism with that?

Yeah we'll have to see how it goes...I obviously love Texas for a lot of reasons, but won't discount the real possibility that it could go south [ba-dum tissss] real fast.

I love Texas, I just don’t like what their politicians do all the time. I had to catch myself lambasting “Texas” when I really meant to say “Texas Republicans.” They do their best to act and to portray Texas as a deep red state when it’s really not anymore.

And this year they took a hard-right turn. On this, voting rights, abortion — all the culture war crap — while watching their state first freeze and now, roast.

I obviously support their moves towards ending abortion, irreconcilable difference of views between us there, but yeah their energy grid is a disaster. It doesn't matter that your grid is independent from the nation's if you can't keep it running in the first place, haha!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18/texas-heartbeat-bill-abortions-law/amp/

Banning abortion at 6 weeks is insane. It’s effectively a total abortion ban since many women don’t know they’re pregnant at that point, or if they do, they may not be able get an appointment in time.

That’s the point, of course. But it’s blatantly unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade which says abortions can’t be banned until the third trimester.

So it’s red meat virtue-signaling legislation doomed to be stricken down unless SCOTUS signs on. Which they won’t. Not even with a 6-3 conservative majority. To my knowledge, not a single SCOTUS justice would overturn Roe v. Wade. Not even Thomas.

If I’m wrong and they do, then Democrats find the spine they’ve hitherto lacked, and they pack the Court. It’s that simple. Democrats will go to nuclear war over this issue.

Roberts and Kavanaugh (Roberts’ protégée in many respects) both care about the Court too much to be known as the justices who issued a ruling so controversial it brought about a court-packing. So, with the 3 liberals that’s at least 5 votes for Roe v. Wade, assuming I’m wrong about Barrett, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas.

That is indeed the conservative play though. Trust me on this. I have spoken personally with MT AG Austin Knudsen (who really is an incredible guy, I must say). The various states will keep passing legislation until the Court takes it up. They're banking on Roe's initial ruling, which required incredible works of the pen to justify from a legal standpoint, being ruled invalid and authority on the issue being returned to the states. Then if the Dems to try to pack the Court they give the right a HUGE election weapon in being able to accuse them of being undemocratic and pointing to example countries such as Venezuela to showcase how, "Packing the courts leads to the destruction of the nation.".

A far-fetched plan as of now, to be sure, but not one which any self-respecting liberal should discount. It'd come down to a shouting match over who can make the other side ('anti-choice' and 'court-packers') seem worse, and if I'm being frank; the right has never had a more effective media presence than now and I'd not bet on the left winning if s**t hit the fan today.

Personally, I'd rather we fix our aching foster care system (because that issue cannot be separated from this) and then work on promoting changes at the cultural, not immediately legal, level. You can't expect something as sensitive as this issue to NOT cause outright political civil war if it's rammed through with temporary majorities and a populace so divided as now. Ideally you convince the majority that abortion is wrong because it fundamentally denies human beings the right to live a life, then it's EZ-street to passing a Constitutional Amendment on the matter and you'd have a happier and more unified populace as a result. If I was the power behind America's strings, this is how I'd go about it.

Cheers to the upcoming madness though. It pains me that we'll probably be on opposing sides of it if things proceed as they are now. :(

Basically what Manhattan said — dogma aside, convincing a supermajority of Americans that a clump of cells in a uterus has a greater right to its own life and destiny than the fully-fledged human who is carrying it is going to be a heavy lift.

Most Americans can get behind the idea that a *viable* fetus that can survive outside the womb has a greater claim to life. Particularly since by that point in the pregnancy, the pregnant woman has had an ample opportunity to carefully reflect upon whether she wants to be a mother.

And that’s exactly what Roe v. Wade says, pretty much. States can ban abortion at the point of viability beginning at about the third trimester, if they do choose.

Anti-abortion advocates try to characterize Roe v. Wade as an extremist ruling, but really it is a carefully considered compromise among expectant mothers, the fetus, doctors, and the state.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

I'm aware of Roe's ruling and it's implications, thank you. I'm also aware that going about convincing most people of this view won't be easy.

My point here is that I'd prefer we get it done that way, so everyone is at least on the same page, as opposed to splitting the country still further by doing it with temporary majorities. Like I said, I know for a fact this is the plan and I just see a lot of craziness down the line if it goes forward.

abortion is wrong because it fundamentally denies human beings the right to live""" Hey you remember what life was like before you were born? It denys no one anything. They are not humans or people yet.

What is the difference between being a zygote and never being born? Nothing.