The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Cooked Crack]

10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

So you are convinced their aren't 10 GOP senators that actually support Roe v Wade?

Yes. If you can name 5 I'd be shocked.

[Renegade7]

6 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

What is this, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington?  Don't they just wave a filibuster flag these days and everyone surrenders to it?

 

3 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

Can they even bring it to a vote?  I'm not an expert on Senate rules but I think the GOP can block it being brought to the floor.

 

 

The talking filibuster hasn't been a thing for a while.  And Manchin doesn't support even bringing that back as far as I'm aware.

 

Anyone can correct me on this, but need 60 votes to approve voting on a non-budget bill:

 

https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-is-the-senate-filibuster-and-what-would-it-take-to-eliminate-it/

 

Even then, that's a vote that will list the names of the no's, do it.

[Renegade7]

18 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Yes. If you can name 5 I'd be shocked.

 

Murkowski and Collins for starters, Romney doesn't support a recent Alabama law.  Bill Cassidy believes Texas law is likely unconstitutional. 

 

I'm trying to find the stance of thr Tennessee senators in the laws their governor is trying to push, but their state senate leader is against an all out ban.

 

Restrictions on abortion rights is not the same thing as an outright ban.

 

Edit: even if we don't have the full 60 now, stuff like this could make life harder for folks like JD Vance, holding off going under 50

Edited May 4, 2022 by Renegade7

[TheGreatBuzz]

20 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

Anyone can correct me on this, but need 60 votes to approve voting on a non-budget bill:

 

https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-is-the-senate-filibuster-and-what-would-it-take-to-eliminate-it/

 

Even then, that's a vote that will list the names of the no's, do it.

The problem with that is the ones that vote no on cloture can say they just wanted to continue debate, not that they are voting yes or no on abortion.  We need a real vote on the topic.

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

The problem with that is the ones that vote no on cloture can say they just wanted to continue debate, not that they are voting yes or no on abortion.  We need a real vote on the topic.

 

Fair, but I'm not buying a lot of Republican women are going to buy that if SCOTUS makes their ruling and GOP keeps making excuses for why they won't vote to protect or worse explain trying to get an all out ban.

 

At least half of Republican women still support abortion rights, pissing half your female base does not sound like a winning strategy.

 

Quote

Polling shows about a third of Republicans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to the Pew Research Center, and more than half of Republican women support keeping Roe v. Wade, according to a poll in 2018 from the public opinion research firm PerryUndem, whose clients include Planned Parenthood and the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. Nearly 90% of voters say they would support a friend or family member if they had an abortion. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3749202002

 

This could be a situation where dems pick off moderates again for GOP going too far on something, like in the 2020 election. Doesn't make them new Democrats, jus a lot of moderate Republican women said enough was enough to beat Trump and GOP clearly hasn't learned their lesson on the power that part of the bases weilds when they've had their fill of something.

 

GOP is acting like the dog that caught its tail right now, that doesn't mean double down is the winning strategy, this could backfire on them.  

 

Dems are killing me right now like the dude that is obviously getting signals from someone at a party and everyone is waiting to see if they get it in time.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Renegade7

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Could Biden sign an executive order allowing for direct shipment of the abortion pill similar to how COVID tests were handled? I mean, I know it is a nuclear option but so is what is about to happen.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

47 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

So you are convinced their aren't 10 GOP senators that actually support Roe v Wade?

 

Than make them vote on it, get the list of the no votes, and make the midterms a vote about abortion more so then Biden.

 

Dems could screw this up by trying to save the world and trying to go beyond where most of the country is in abortion.

 

But this isn't that complicated, and with Senate Majority lead being a dem it will at least get voted on.

it won’t get voted on, it’ll likely be blocked. And there could be 20+ GOP senators that support Roe v Wade but even if it came to a vote, they won’t actually vote against the single biggest rallying cry of their party for 40 years. It would be a lot political suicide for them to do so. 

[Cooked Crack]

20 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Murkowski and Collins for starters, Romney doesn't support a recent Alabama law.  Bill Cassidy believes Texas law is likely unconstitutional. 

 

I'm trying to find the stance of thr Tennessee senators in the laws their governor is trying to push, but their state senate leader is against an all out ban.

 

Restrictions on abortion rights is not the same thing as an outright ban.

 

Not supporting the laws coming out isn't the same as codifying Roe. Murkowski and Collins are the only Republicans that would join in support.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

A Republican Senator is never going to vote to legalize abortion. Ever 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Momma There Goes That Man

[Renegade7]

8 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Not supporting the laws coming out isn't the same as codifying Roe. Murkowski and Collins are the only Republicans that would join in support.

 

10 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

A Republican Senator is never going to vote to legalize abortion. Ever 

 

Theres clearly a line here for some folks in the GOP, and this is still a great risk to losing GOP women during another impoetant election? We really sure GOP senators ready to go all in? Like when they had the chance to get rid of ACA?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/story/2019/05/19/mitt-romney-alabama-abortion-law-1332867%3f_amp=true

 

Quote

Romney is not the first prominent Republican to come out against the Alabama abortion law. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California said last week that the bill goes “further than I believe,” and Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said she believed the bill should have made exceptions. While not addressing the legislation directly, President Donald Trump on Saturday night tweeted that he favored exceptions in the case of rape and incest.

 

Again, SCOTUS striking down Roe and GOP senators either doing nothing or worse pushing for and supporting full bans sounds like a recipient for disaster.  They may do it anyway to rally up their bases, that doesn't mean it won't backfire on them in the midterms.

 

Doing that is the opposite of codyfing Roe, so what is that supposed to mean or how are Republican women supposed to look at that?

[bearrock]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

Theres clearly a line here for some folks in the GOP, and this is still a great risk to losing GOP women during another impoetant election? We really sure GOP senators ready to go all in? Like when they had the chance to get rid of ACA?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/story/2019/05/19/mitt-romney-alabama-abortion-law-1332867%3f_amp=true

 

 

Again, SCOTUS striking down Roe and GOP senators either doing nothing or worse pushing for and supporting full bans sounds like a recipient for disaster.  They may do it anyway to rally up their bases, that doesn't mean it won't backfire on them in the midterms.

 

Doing that is the opposite of codyfing Roe, so what is that supposed to mean or how are Republican women supposed to look at that?

 

I appreciate your determination, but I think you have way more faith in the average GOP voters or some GOP Senators than most.  Certainly way more than I do.  I truly hope you're right and I'm wrong.

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[Larry]

11 hours ago, Dan T. said:

anybody who says that can **** right off. 
 

Assholes. 

And this is news because ....?

[LD0506]

[Larry]

11 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

I believe him. 

[PeterMP]

9 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Fair, but I'm not buying a lot of Republican women are going to buy that if SCOTUS makes their ruling and GOP keeps making excuses for why they won't vote to protect or worse explain trying to get an all out ban.

 

At least half of Republican women still support abortion rights, pissing half your female base does not sound like a winning strategy.

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3749202002

 

This could be a situation where dems pick off moderates again for GOP going too far on something, like in the 2020 election. Doesn't make them new Democrats, jus a lot of moderate Republican women said enough was enough to beat Trump and GOP clearly hasn't learned their lesson on the power that part of the bases weilds when they've had their fill of something.

 

GOP is acting like the dog that caught its tail right now, that doesn't mean double down is the winning strategy, this could backfire on them.  

 

Dems are killing me right now like the dude that is obviously getting signals from someone at a party and everyone is waiting to see if they get it in time.

 

Just want to point out that the whole basis of your post seems to be wrong.  The biggest swing in voters in white voters in 2016 were actually men.  College educated men swung to Democrats by 11% in 2020 vs. 2016.  Men without a college education swung to Democrats by 6%.  There was no difference in women without a college education and only a 2% difference with women with a college education.

 

Trump did not lose the election because moderate GOP women voters said enough is a enough.  He also did better with minority groups in 2016 than 2020 (Dems got a small percent of the vote).  If you look at all women, Trump actually did better in 2020 than in 2016.  He lost because he bleed white men in big numbers.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/research/2020-exit-polls-show-a-scrambling-of-democrats-and-republicans-traditional-bases/

 

There is a big difference between supporting something and it being something that is going to drive your voting.  I don't think many people are going to vote pro-Roe v. Wade.  Historically voting for Roe v. Wade doesn't seem to be a powerful driving force and a single issue vote thing (or this wouldn't be happening).  This is something that you see all the time by the left (well it polls well so it will help us at the voting booth, but it doesn't work that way in reality.  Just because something polls well doesn't mean it is going to motivate voters.)

 

I suspect when push comes to shove the women that vote GOP currently (vote for nativist and American first policies) are still going to vote that way.  Thinking about the Congress there might be a few races where this matters, but I'm extremely doubtful that this will make much of a difference.

Edited May 4, 2022 by PeterMP

[bearrock]

More I think about it, more I think this particular line of speculation makes sense (I know it was already brought up in another post)

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-disarray-extraordinary-breach-184149266.html

 

Quote

Viability, the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb, is these days around 23 weeks, meaning that Mississippi’s 15-week law is flatly at odds with Roe and Casey. But the chief justice’s approach, whether considered incremental or unprincipled, would have left abortion available, for now, to many people.

 

In an editorial last week, The Wall Street Journal expressed concern that Roberts was trying to persuade Kavanaugh and Barrett to take his narrower approach.

 

Quote

The point of the leak, then, may have been to lock in the five-justice conservative majority.

 

“I would be wary of jumping to a conclusion that the leaker is necessarily someone who opposes overturning Roe v. Wade,” said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine.

Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the source was probably trying to increase the price of switching positions.

 

“In terms of who leaked it and why, it seems much more likely to me that it comes from the right in response to an actual or threatened defection by one of the five who voted to overturn Roe,” he said. “Leaking this early draft makes that more costly for a defector because now people will think that they changed their vote after the leak in response to public outrage.”

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by bearrock

[Renegade7]

@PeterMP you spending too much time looking at the overall average versus the numbers in the battle ground states that determined the 2020 election, especially in the suburbs:

 

Quote

It wasn’t just women who carried Biden: Trump lost ground among male voters in 2020 compared to 2016. But key to Biden’s success were his gains among white college-educated women in battleground states - like Vadala - who turned out in higher numbers than for Trump’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton four years ago.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-women-insight/i-just-couldnt-be-silent-how-american-women-decided-the-2020-presidential-race-idUSKBN27N0XC

 

Quote

Overall, most white Republican women supported Trump. But nationally, “we’ve not seen this amount of defection from the Republican Party in 20 or 30 years,” Christopher Weber, a professor at the University of Arizona School of Government and Public Policy, told me.

 

The suburban shift went well beyond Maricopa. Through organizing by activists of color and the leftward tilt of white, college-educated women, Biden was able to capture many of America’s other big suburbs, including Cobb County, Georgia, outside of Atlanta, and the counties surrounding Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Detroit; and Houston.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/11/gop-women-who-ditched-their-party-vote-democrat/616987/

 

The SCOTUS building has been surrounded by protestors since the leak, so I wouldn't bet on it not being a motivating factor in voting this midterm if worst case scenario finally does happen and Roe is gone versus the threat of it being gone.  GOP would not take up this issue the way they do if they felt it had zero impact on how their base votes for them.

[Burgold]

I find it laughable that the conservatives on the SCOTUS are worrying about the "integrity" of the court after so many seats have been held hostage by Mitch McConnell for the sole purpose of installing an ideologue.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Burgold

[bcl05]

 

[Dan T.]

3 hours ago, EmirOfShmo said:

 

 

Pete Buttigieg shouid be President before too long.

[bearrock]

17 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

Pete Buttigieg shouid be President before too long.

That's pretty much the A+ answer.

[The Evil Genius]

3+ years old and still relevant.

 

 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

@PeterMP you spending too much time looking at the overall average versus the numbers in the battle ground states that determined the 2020 election, especially in the suburbs:

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-women-insight/i-just-couldnt-be-silent-how-american-women-decided-the-2020-presidential-race-idUSKBN27N0XC

 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/11/gop-women-who-ditched-their-party-vote-democrat/616987/

 

The SCOTUS building has been surrounded by protestors since the leak, so I wouldn't bet on it not being a motivating factor in voting this midterm if worst case scenario finally does happen and Roe is gone versus the threat of it being gone.  GOP would not take up this issue the way they do if they felt it had zero impact on how their base votes for them.

 

Your posting sources with anecdotal information and not actual data (And note, this isn't attacking the sources.  I'm commenting on the content of the source.)   Assuming large scale averages is wrong w/o actual numbers supporting it is never a good idea.

 

Looking specifically at Georgia, in  2016 Trump won 43% of the female vote.  In 2020, it was even higher with 45% female of the vote. 

 

In 2016 Trump won 60% of the male vote in Georgia.  In 2020, it was down to 55%.

 

In 2016 Trump won 75% of the white vote.  In 2020, it was down to 69%.  

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-georgia.html

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ga/

 

Georgia is an issue for Republicans in general because of changing demographics, including in the suburbs.  More minorities voted in Georgia and in general they didn't vote for Trump and so that hurt.  But if you want to look at where the votes changed by a population block, it was white males.

 

Trump still won them, but he won them by much smaller numbers.

 

Some times large averages don't represent a subset of a population or sample, but if somebody is claiming they don't, you should always be skeptical unless they have numbers to actually back it up.  You read something like that article in the Atlantic where there are no numbers and what they are telling you is different than the national averages, that sort of thing should always raise a red flag.  While parts of any population can differ from the larger scale average, it is always unlikely that they will and so claims that they do should be treated skeptically.  I'm not going to say no women decided to vote against Trump, but that there was a large defection of women against Trump isn't supported by the exit polls nationally or in Georgia.  Both national and Georgia exit polls both support that white men were much less likely to vote for Trump in 2020 than 2016.

 

Some people do vote on Roe v. Wade and that those people are out protesting isn't surprising.  But those people already reliably vote Democrat.  Are there going to be (many) people that vote Republican that are pro-Roe v. Wade enough to change their vote?  I don't have any data one way or the other.  But I doubt it.  That doesn't seem likely, or I don't think we'd be where we are now.

Edited May 4, 2022 by PeterMP

[EmirOfShmo]

Gut wrenching story that describes how the abortion laws impacted this woman's pregnancy. Details I never knew or considered.