Roe v Wade has been overturned. How do you feel about that?

[N.E. Brigand]

For months I've been wondering if it was a strategic mistake to have a pro-choice amendment on the ballot this year, when the surge in Democratic-votes does little to help Democrats, as opposed to next year, when it could help Pres. Joe Biden and especially Sen. Sherrod Brown in their reelection efforts. On the other hand, if Ohio is likely to vote Republican in a presidential race, then maybe Issue 1 would not win if on the 2024 ballot, and that would hurt women (and by extension, everyone). Tonight Republicans are taking my first view, saying that Ohio Democrats have just "taken their best issue off the table." Maybe.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't think minimum wage and redistricting have the same oomph as reproductive rights in the post Dobbs era.

[RoseMorninStar]

On Fox News tonight, Sean Hannity said, "Democrats are trying to scare women into thinking Republicans don't want abortion legal under any circumstances."

They don't need Democrats to do that, they're doing a fine job of it all on their own. (they only need Democrats to take the blame)

[N.E. Brigand]

Ohio Republicans are now talking about putting an issue on the ballot next year to repeal Issue 1.

Issue 1 passed last night 56.6% - 43.4%. Polling over the past couple years consistently showed 57%-58% of Ohioans supporting abortion rights. (Which is why Republcians put an issue on the ballot in August that would raise the threshold for passing amendments to 60%. As you know, that failed.*) So arguably Republicans overperformed a little. But this would be a real thumb in voters' eyes to ask them to undo the amendment that they just approved.

*Also, if Republicans want to try again on a ballot initiative, then as I said before the vote last summer, they can prove that they were honest that the reason they wanted to raise the threshold for passing amendments -- they said it was not opposition to abortion rights but a genuine concern about out-of-state lobbying -- by putting the same amendment on the ballot again now that abortion rights have been approved by voters. I wouldn't support such a move now any more than I did then (unless, as I said at the time, the initiative itself were subject to the same constraints it would impose on future generations' initiatives), but Republicans should be every bit as much in favor of it now as they were three months ago.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Wouldn't putting repeal on the ballot potentially help Democrats (and particularly Sherrod Brown) in next year's election by galvanizing voters who are particularly motivated by this issue? Or do they want to have the repeal vote earlier than the November election?

[N.E. Brigand]

I don't think minimum wage and redistricting have the same oomph as reproductive rights in the post Dobbs era.

Agreed, although I wonder if oomph is cumulative.

[N.E. Brigand]

In Michigan, abortion rights activists have submitted signatures to put an initiative on the November ballot to amend the state constitution to protect reproductive rights and block a 1931 state abortion ban that had previously been overturned by Roe v. Wade -- the initiative requires 425,000 signatures; the activists have submitted 750,000 signatures, so it's likely that Michigan voters will get to vote on this in a few months. This was only possible because Michigan's initiative deadline hadn't passed and the activists started collecting signatures months before the recent SCOTUS decision.

Despite activists in Michigan having submitted an overwhelming number of valid signatures to put a pro-choice amendment on this year's ballot -- as confirmed by the Michigan Bureau of Elections -- the state's Board of Canvassers, which has two Republicans and two Democrats and needs three votes to approve such measures, blocked the measure by a 2-2 vote from appearing on this year's ballot. The decision will be appealed to Michigan Supreme Court, a narrow majority of whose members were appointed by Democrats, and thus Michiganders probably will get the chance to vote on this issue after all, but it's shocking that it needs to come to that. A blatant disregard for the democratic process. Forced birth is slavery. The truth will march on.

This measure did get onto the Michigan ballot in November 2022, and 57% of voters approved it -- almost the same portion as did so yesterday in Ohio.

Well, today, one year later, conservatives are suing in federal court to overturn this Michigan constitutional amendment.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

What nonsense! That having been said, I could certainly see this argument flying with some conservative judges, including at least two on the U.S. Supreme Court. But I doubt that five of them would endorse it.

[RoseMorninStar]

Again, they're all about ruling not representing.

[N.E. Brigand]

What nonsense! That having been said, I could certainly see this argument flying with some conservative judges, including at least two on the U.S. Supreme Court. But I doubt that five of them would endorse it.

Only the thirsty justices, perhaps.



(Joel Berry is the editor of the Babylon Bee, purportedly a conservative comedy website, but I don't think he's joking here.)

[N.E. Brigand]

Two quick items:

--Since the Dobbs decision, support for banning abortions after 15 weeks has declined.

--Comments by Senator J.D. Vance, Republican of Ohio, on last night's results.

[RoseMorninStar]

Two quick items:

--Since the Dobbs decision, support for banning abortions after 15 weeks has declined.

--Comments by Senator J.D. Vance, Republican of Ohio, on last night's results.

The US a not religious theocracy and our laws are not based on canon law of a particular faith or believe our leaders are divinely inspired. It is not a politicians place to force their religion on us. If that were the case perhaps guns and war should be illegal. Alcohol? Birth control? (etc.. etc..) Second, no matter how one feels about abortion it's a mistake to have politicians making medical decisions. They are not doctors. There are many forms/phases/aspects which are 'pro-life' that politicians have no problem disregarding, when it suits them.

Additionally, where does this 'moral authority' end or should I say where does it lead us to? Restrictions or mandates on clothing, hair styles, education, jobs, divorce, per-marital or extra-marital sex, cohabitation, spending money for health care or education on the handicapped or aged?

[N.E. Brigand]

Some Ohio Republicans hope to get around the pro-choice amendment that voters just added to the state's constitution by taking away the power of Ohio's courts to enforce it.

Nationally, many Republicans are doubling down on the anti-abortion position and ban the morning-after pill.

[N.E. Brigand]

Despite Kansas voters last year having rejected an attempt to rewrite the state's constitution to make it easier to ban abortions, Kansas's attorney general continues to fight in court to put more abortion restrictions in place.

[N.E. Brigand]

A new Wall Street Journal poll finds that "Support for Abortion Access Is Near Record," with 55% of respondents saying they favor abortion rights without restriction. This mostly comes from a big jump among Democrats and independents, although the article opens with comments from a pro-choice Republican woman in Cincinnati. One valuable reminder in the story is that favor abortion rights wasn't originally a Democrat vs. Republican issue.

The individual voters interviewed continue to baffle me. For example:

Charise Chism used to consider herself strongly Republican. But the 42-year-old caretaker in Pearl, Miss., said she feels like her party’s focus on abortion has become a distraction from more pressing issues.

“Our government is in debt and running off to more wars, and we’re like, ‘Let’s get rid of this thing we decided long ago?’” she said of the abortion debate. “I thought this was solved.”

As a Black woman, she said she doesn’t trust the government to be involved in her healthcare. Chism has a friend who is raising a child conceived by rape because she couldn’t afford to leave Mississippi to get an abortion. “It should not even be a political issue,” she said.

The U.S. government has had a debt for more than a century. It peaked nearly forty years before she was born. Republican presidents have typically contributed to more increases in the debt than have Democratic presidents. The U.S. government is not "running off to more wars." In 2011, Barack Obama, a Democrat, pulled U.S. troops out of Iraq, where George W. Bush, a Republican had sent them in 2003. In 2021, Joe Biden, a Democrat, pulled U.S. troops out of Afghanistan, where George W. Bush had sent them in 2001. (To be fair: Biden was carrying out a plan that Donald Trump, a Republican, had put in place, but Trump criticized Biden for doing so and said that the U.S. should have maintained a military base in Afghanistan after the withdrawal.) And when she says "she doesn't trust the government to be involved in her heatlhcare," does that extend to insurance provided by Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act, all of which were Democratic plans?

And why on earth did she think the abortion issue had been solved? Republicans have been trying for decades to overturn Roe v. Wade. It's been a central pillar of their campaigning. Democrats by contract have been running on protecting abortion rights for decades. Did she never hear any of that?

There's just so many confused voters out there whose media consumption is not getting them to the truth.

[RoseMorninStar]

As a Black woman, she said she doesn’t trust the government to be involved in her healthcare. Chism has a friend who is raising a child conceived by rape because she couldn’t afford to leave Mississippi to get an abortion. “It should not even be a political issue,” she said.

*italics mine. I could not agree more.

[N.E. Brigand]

Last week, a Texas judge ruled that a woman named Kate Cox must be allowed to abort her nonviable fetus because not doing so risked making it impossible for her to ever give birth in the future. Texas's attorney general appealed that decision and "threatened criminal prosecution against doctors or hospitals who help facilitate the abortion," and then the Texas Supreme Court stayed the judge's order. Cox's medical condition has grown worse, so she's left the state to seek treatment elsewhere.

[RoseMorninStar]

Last week, a Texas judge ruled that a woman named Kate Cox must be allowed to abort her nonviable fetus because not doing so risked making it impossible for her to ever give birth in the future. Texas's attorney general appealed that decision and "threatened criminal prosecution against doctors or hospitals who help facilitate the abortion," and then the Texas Supreme Court stayed the judge's order. Cox's medical condition has grown worse, so she's left the state to seek treatment elsewhere.

This makes me livid. It's not 'pro-life'. It's pro-control of women and downright cruelty.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The Supreme Court has stayed Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling (which banned mifepristone) pending appeal. Justices Thomas and Alito dissent, the latter with an opinion.

I meant to post about this yesterday. The conservative Fifth Circuit has partly upheld and partly reversed Judge Kacmaryk's ruling.

Appeals court says abortion pill mifepristone should remain on the market but rules in favor of limiting access

Wednesday’s ruling reversed parts of April’s blockbuster ruling from US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk that would have suspended the federal government’s two-decade old approval of the drug. The appeals court, however, agreed with Kascmaryk that it was likely unlawful for the government to make more recent changes to the drug’s regulations that made it easier to obtain.

While the appeals court majority did not rule in favor of pulling the mifepristone off the market, as abortion foes were seeking, the appeals court showed itself to be very sympathetic to a large swath of the challengers’ arguments.

The appeals court endorsed most of the procedural arguments that the challengers made for why it was appropriate for a court to intervene. Elrod’s opinion also embraced claims about mifepristone’s risks, put forward by anti-abortion doctors challenging the FDA approval, even though those characterizations had been widely rebuked by mainstream medical groups.

In concluding that FDA’s moves to relax the pills’ regulations should be reversed, Elrod wrote, “the public interest is disserved by a drug that does not afford adequate protections to its users.”

“To be clear, the evidence does not show that mifepristone is unsafe in all applications,” the appeals court said. “But on this record and at this preliminary stage, the Medical Organizations and Doctors have made a substantial showing that the 2016 Amendments and 2021 Non-Enforcement Decision were taken without sufficient consideration of the effects those changes would have on patients.”

The DOJ has already said that it will appeal to the Supreme Court, and the stay will remain in place until that is decided.

SCOTUS has agreed to hear the appeal.