US sues Idaho over abortion law, cites medical treatment
More of this please.
And, as someone who grew up in Idaho: Fuck the Idaho Republican Party.
Child Support Is Bad Because It Encourages Abortions, GOP Lawmaker Says
Sharon Zhang, reporting for Truthout:
Republican Del. Chris Pritt said on the floor of the legislature that, if a man gets a woman pregnant, he may encourage or force a woman to get an abortion because of the possibility that he would have to pay child support if the fetus were carried to term. Thus, Pritt argued, child support is inconsistent with an anti-abortion ideology.
The Bullshit Starts Flying
Seat-filler Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in Dobbs:
Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. But we have stated unequivocally that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
Seat-filler Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion:
…in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, includ- ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.
Kim Chandler reporting from Alabama for AP News on Wednesday:
In a brief filed Monday, the Alabama attorney general’s office argued similarly that gender transition treatments are not “deeply rooted in our history or traditions,” and thus the state has the authority to ban them. Alabama contends such treatments are dangerous and experimental, a view disputed by medical organizations.
Not even a week later and Alito’s bullshit is verified as bullshit.
1868
The majority opinions in Dobbs are fixated on state laws regarding abortion in 1868 — the year the 14th Amendment was adopted. To quickly summarize their argument: "if abortion restrictions weren’t considered unconstitutional then, we can’t say they are unconstitutional now.” Of course, this argument doesn’t hold up when subjected to ‘thinking,’ but let’s take this to its natural conclusion and apply the standards of the late 1800s to the members of the Supreme Court who decided to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Neil Gorsuch gets off easy in 1868. He’s white, a practicing Anglican/Episcopalian, and white (NOT A TYPO). Because 1868 Neil Gorsuch would be free of judgment, I think it’s only fair that we share the 2022 judgment of an Episcopalian Reverend regarding the Dobbs decision: “…the Supreme Court’s devastating decision to assault the health and rights of pregnant Americans by striking down Roe v. Wade is a sin.”
Damn! No wonder he wants it to be 1868.Brett Kavanaugh is of Irish Catholic descent and in 1800s America “No Irish Need Apply.” While being Irish wouldn’t preclude him from practicing law or serving on the court, at that point in history it is arguably more likely that an Irish frat boy with a proclivity for alcohol would end up defending himself in a courtroom rather than presiding over one.
Have fun in lockup, Brett!The son of an Italian immigrant, Samuel Alito might not have a good time in late 1800s America. In 1891, eleven Italian immigrants were lynched by a mob in New Orleans. One of the mob's organizers? Future governor of Louisiana, John Parker. He once described Italians as "just a little worse than the Negro, being if anything filthier in [their] habits, lawless, and treacherous." Future President of the United States Teddy Roosevelt wrote in a letter to his sister that the lynching was a “good thing.” And even if 1800s Sam Alito was able to practice law, many would accuse him of being a mob lawyer because he’s Italian.
Good luck overcoming that rumor, Sam!In 1896 the Supreme Court ruled that segregation didn’t violate the 14th Amendment, making discrimination based on race perfectly fine in 1800s America. In fact, you could argue that racial discrimination is deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions. In 1868 Clarence Thomas wouldn’t be considered qualified to serve on the court because he is black. But even he doesn’t deserve the fate 1800s America would provide him — too bad he’s the one leading the charge in that direction. If he wants a return to the glory days of post-Civil War America maybe he should look into what Republicans of that era thought about seditionists.
In 1872 the Supreme Court ruled that it was perfectly legal to deny a woman a license to practice law merely on the basis of sex. If women could be barred from practicing law in 1872, why should Amy Coney Barrett be allowed to do so today? To quote the concurring opinion in that case: “The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.”
Amy should get back in the kitchen, where she thinks she should belong.
To recap: one would still sit on the Court, another would be in jail for public drunkenness (if he’s lucky) or rape (if he isn’t), a third is trying to convince you he isn’t in the mafia, a fourth is living through a crime against humanity, and a fifth is being chastised for not being pregnant right now.
They should sit down and think about their decision — they clearly didn’t do so the first time.