Friends in Maskachusetts, New York, and California have been raging against the potential for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, thus enabling states to make their own laws regarding abortion. They say that they would personally suffer from any change in the status quo and that, in particular, they would lose their “freedom.”
Why I find this confusing is that the same people say that they will never visit a Republican-influenced state. So I don’t see how the abortion laws that prevail in the 28 states that are officially boycotted by San Francisco could cause them any personal suffering.
Here’s a Facebook exchange example:
- me: How would someone in California experience any of the feared changes as a result of forthcoming Supreme Court decisions? How many California Democrats will ever visit, for example, Arkansas? Or talk to anyone in Arkansas?
- Bay Area Righteous: Ha! It’s not just because of abortion. I’d be hard pressed to visit you in Florida, Philip, but not because of you. 🙂 Between humidity, anti-abortion, guns and…DeSantis (!), why would I? Okay, I’m being a bit snarky, but in general I do have more interest in visiting the more liberal parts of the country and the world. Well, that’s not entirely true. In the past 11 years I’ve visited Egypt, Turkey and Jordan (among other places).
- me: Were you upset that abortion was strictly illegal in Egypt? Or how about Costa Rica, a much more popular vacation destination for Californians than most of the states where the Supreme Court’s return of this issue to the states would result in the law being changed? Do Californians protest the illegality of abortion in Costa Rica?
- Bay Area Righteous: I was “upset” about all sorts of things in Egypt. We were in Cairo on January 25, 2011, the day the revolution began there. Learned a lot about their oppressive regime at the time. And since. But the difference (same for Costa Rica) is that it’s not our country. We have no standing there. The same is true about Arkansas, but unlike Costa Rica, we do have political interactions with Arkansans. We both vote for people in the House, Senate, White House, etc. Arkansans have influence over federal aspects of Californians. That’s not so for Costa Ricans.
- Bay Area Righteous: I don’t avoid Arkansas only because of their stance on abortions.
- me: So you would celebrate every additional abortion in Arkansas because it would mean one fewer person who could potentially vote for policies that you don’t like at the national level?
- Portland (Oregon) Righteous friend of the Bay Area Righteous guy: master of the straw man! I’m against the upcoming ruling. It limits freedom and will likely pave the way to erosion of more freedoms. And until the crowd that applauds the decision also works for the rights and needs of the born, then I’ll gladly continue being sanctimonious.
- me: How would [our mutual friend in San Francisco’s] freedom be limited by the Supreme Court saying that abortion was not a federal matter? Wouldn’t it be increased? The California legislature and Gavin Newsom would be free to establish any laws (or no laws) related to abortion that they desired. Or are you saying that Californians will somehow vote themselves into slavery (“un-freedom”) at the state level? ([our friend] has already explained that, even prior to this leaked draft, he was boycotting any state that he does not consider to be “liberal” so he is not going to travel to any place where a Republican might have any influence on abortion laws.)
- Portland Righteous: I don’t really care about how this law affects [our friend]. It’s likely that any actual effects will be limited to his relations living in affected states. Though he might change his actions by giving more to pro-choice causes and maybe even host an abortion refugee from one of the affected states. It might affect other California residents who might consider relocation — depending on their level of tolerance for increased state scrutiny of reproductive rights. Being an Oregon resident, my state is actively supporting Idaho residents in need of abortion services though money and hosting. Anyway, bummer about how the state is getting all up in people’s business.
- me: why do [our friend’s] relations choose to live in states that [our friend] had found (well prior to 2022) sufficiently deplorable to boycott and never visit?
- me: the effects that you cite on OR and CA residents all sound positive to me. You now have a charitable cause that you believe in. When you take in a refugee or give money you will feel better about yourself and your life. See “Being Generous Really Does Make You Happier” (TIME) for some references.
Given that, from these Democrats’ point of view, the U.S. is already functionally split up into at least two countries (one good and one bad), why is the availability of on-demand abortion in the bad sub-country of more interest to someone who lives in the good sub-country than the availability of on-demand abortion in, say, Costa Rica? (the latter being a matter of no interest at all to the people who are outraged regarding the potential unavailability of abortion in Idaho)
Another example, this time from a woman in her early 50s who lives in Maskachusetts (she divorced her husband some years ago and therefore is not subject to male supervision):
- Boston Righteous: A heartfelt “fuck you” to everyone who told me I was overreacting in November 2016″
- “Joseph”: Wait you’re in Mass they will always allow abortions your reaction has no context
- Boston Righteous: the fact that I happen to live in a state currently governed by sane people doesn’t negate the fact that as a fundamental rule, it’s not a problem to restrict my rights as a human being. The fact that some people don’t see that as a huge issue is repugnant.
- Righteous Maryland female: The fact that you actually think [Boston Righteous]’s reaction “has no context” just illustrates the incredible privilege from which you are able to view this issue. You have absolutely no idea of the effects of this decision. Your rights have never been threatened. your gender has shielded you from many horrible things that women deal with every single day. to say that because [Boston Righteous] lives in Massachusetts and has no context for reacting to this issue is unbelievably insensitive and ignorant. If you don’t remember, [Boston Righteous] has a daughter. Perhaps her daughter may choose to live in another state at some point. … please, try to see that not everyone has the incredible entitlement that you apparently have. [But why would the daughter of a sane person who votes for sane politicians choose to live in a Red State?]
- me: Where are the geographical limits of your concern? You’ve said that your concern extends beyond Massachusetts. Does it extend to Costa Rica where abortion is strictly illegal? If you accept that Costa Ricans can make different choices for their laws in this area than voters in Massachusetts have made, why can’t you accept that voters in Arkansas or North Dakota make different choices from yours?
- Boston Righteous: I am quite aware of the atrocious laws against women’s rights in other countries. I had always believed that my country was better in this regard. Silly me, apparently. [Other than prejudice, what is our basis for thinking that that our country is better?]
- me: Now that we’re deep into globalization I can’t figure out why an issue “in my country” is more critical than the same issue across a border that has become arbitrary. (It might be the case that people who live in Massachusetts are more likely to visit Costa Rica than to visit North Dakota or Arkansas. That wasn’t true before the Jet Age.) About 30% of residents of Massachusetts are immigrants or children of immigrants. They’re probably more connected to various foreign countries than they are to Arkansas or North Dakota.
- Boston Righteous: I didn’t say that I didn’t care. But it’s substantially more personal now that it impacts me. Which of course you realize but for some reason are being obtuse.
- me: I actually don’t understand how the laws of states other than Massachusetts impact you, any more than do the laws of other countries. Separately, Happy Mother’s Day!
- Boston Righteous: because I’d rather not be trapped in MA? Because I’d rather my children not be trapped in MA? Because I’d prefer that the country of which I am a citizen doesn’t allow individual states to treat its residents as second class citizens? Weirdest conversation ever….. and finally, I’m not a jackass who only thinks of herself. I fully realize that as a wealthy, white woman, none of this REALLY matters to me personally. I can buy my way out of whatever I’d need. But I realize that makes me very, very privileged, and I don’t want others to suffer because they are not in the same boat. And frankly, just because. This is obscene and any rational person knows it.
- me: people who love the Massachusetts laws are already unable to move to a lot of other states. Consider that Massachusetts shut down schools for more than a year and kept marijuana stores (“essential”) open, then ordered kids to wear masks in schools. Shutting down a school is illegal in Florida. A school system ordering children to wear masks is illegal in Florida (not against a governor’s order, but against a statute passed by the legislature). Running a recreational marijuana store is illegal. Is there a Red State that you would have previously considered moving to and now must be crossed off the list? … that circles back to my earlier point. If it is about concern for others, why not be upset about the unavailability of abortion after 12 weeks in Germany? (I never have heard you mention this.) That’s a population of more than 80 million under a law that you consider intolerable. And you would be willing even to support Germany by traveling there and spending money?
I remember her talking enthusiastically a few years ago about a vacation trip to Germany, which is why I picked that land of oppression for people who might become pregnant (to avoid inflaming the above folks, I did not point out their cisgender-normative prejudice in assuming that abortion is somehow an issue particular to “women” and did use the pregnant man emoji, though I was dying to do so.
I do find it genuinely confusing that folks in Maskachusetts, California, New York, and other states with sane government want a uniform national law. First, wouldn’t the Supreme Court just strike down any such law if the draft opinion turns into a final opinion? If this is a matter for states to decide, what difference does it make what Congress and Joe Biden do? Second, if this were a matter of federal policy, why do they think that the federal policy would allow as many abortions as MA, CA, and NY law allow? If the federal policy is set to some sort of consensus opinion, wouldn’t it more likely end up being kind of an average of current state policies rather than all the way at one extreme (abortion allowed at 37 weeks in Maskachusetts, for example)?
Finally, look at all of the times that the concept of “privilege” comes up in the Maskachusetts-centered conversation. This is why people need to attend liberal arts colleges. How else would they decode and participate?
Related:
- “I’m a Pro-Choice Governor, and I’m Not Going to Sit on My Hands Waiting for Congress” (NYT, May 9) is a little more advanced than the above. Gretchen Whitmer says that he/she/ze/they hates the abortion laws of Michigan, the very state where he/she/ze/they lives and governs. Instead of asking the still-in-session legislature to pass a new law reflecting the will of the people of Michigan, Governor Whitmer sued his/her/zir/their own state (back on April 7, before the leak of the hate-filled opinion) to see if the judges could find “the right to gain access to abortion” in the state’s constitution.
A multi-tweet speculation on the identity of the leaker…
Your friends probably also complain that Trump was anti-democracy. He appointed judges who let the people and their legislators determine their abortion laws, instead of being dictated by judges with lifetime appointments.
First, wouldn’t the Supreme Court just strike down any such law if the draft opinion turns into a final opinion?
-Yes!
If this is a matter for states to decide, what difference does it make what Congress and Joe Biden do?
-Makes no difference.
Second, if this were a matter of federal policy, why do they think that the federal policy would allow as many abortions as MA, CA, and NY law allow?
-Because they are dumb dumbs.
If the federal policy is set to some sort of consensus opinion, wouldn’t it more likely end up being kind of an average of current state policies rather than all the way at one extreme (abortion allowed at 37 weeks in Maskachusetts, for example)?
-My guess is the average opinion would limit abortions close to 2 months aka 8 weeks.
The one person let slip the real reason: “…will likely pave the way to erosion of more freedoms”. They are concerned about the slipperly slope, which is the tactic that the Left has been riding for more than a hundred years now. So, knowing how effective a tactic it is, they are reasonably worried.
That said, political attitudes are to some extent hereditary, and the people in favor of legal abortion are much more likely to get them. For this reason abortion is doomed, so I find the debate pointless. Too bad that a bunch of old maids will get worked up over it.
The big issue in Casey, the 1992 Supreme Court case that reconsidered Roe, was that Penn. passed a law requiring a married pregnant woman to notify her husband about the abortion. There were a bunch of exceptions if she did not really want to tell him. The Casey court ruled that this requirement was unconstitutional.
If Roe/Casey are reversed, then sure, abortion will still be legal and available in most places, but some women might have to suffer the indignity of telling their husbands what happened to the pregnancy.
Isn’t there a concern that more unwanted children born to ill-prepared parents will lead to criminality down the road? People born in Texas to bad parents will be free to move to CA to engage in crime once they grow up, for example. Likewise, such people can live on government assistance and cost the taxpayer money that would have been saved if there was legal abortion.
This argument makes no sense for a country without borders, the way the politicians elected in blue states treat United States of America.
Perplexed, you are correct but do agree that if you are concerned about open borders, you might also be concerned about unsuitable/drug addicted parents having children that they are not qualified to raise?
Anon: That’s kind of a eugenics argument similar to what makes Nobel-winner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley anathema (“Shockley argued that a higher rate of reproduction among the less intelligent was having a dysgenic effect on society, and that a drop in average intelligence would ultimately lead to a decline in civilization. … Shockley also proposed that individuals with IQs below 100 be paid to undergo voluntary sterilization.”).
IF modern day Americans agreed with Shockley’s 1960s proposals, we would do the opposite of almost everything that we do (e.g., encourage people who don’t work to have children by offering to give them housing, health care, food, etc., on condition that they have at least one child, encourage immigration by people with no skills and no education, etc.). I think that we can infer from this that Americans do not agree with Shockley and therefore the child of a low-intelligence criminal is just as valuable to us as the child of a high-intelligence hard worker even if we believe that the child is likely to turn out to be a low-intelligence criminal him/her/zir/theirself.
Like most republicans you’re clearly incapable of even being aware empathy exists, let alone experience it.
Anon: I think this is a new and interesting phenomenon, i.e., people who claim to be able to detect absence or presence of empathy in others. But the correct term for what the Progressives I’ve quoted above are experiencing is “emptathy” or “emptyathy”. One way that we could infer empathy existed inside of a person is that the person was motivated to take action. But these folks aren’t taking any action other than posting outrage on Facebook and/or Twitter. They aren’t performing abortions or volunteering as assistants to those who do the actual abortions. They aren’t hosting abortion refugees in their own capacious houses. They aren’t funding or driving abortion buses from Red States to Blue State abortion havens. They spend their laptop-class earnings on Teslas and kitchen renovations rather than donating to abortion providers or abortion transportation facilitators. Their statements are perfect examples of “empty words” and therefore we have “emptathy”!
I love it… you nailed it, Phil.
Emptathy – it makes you feel good about yourself without having to do anything!!!
And you get a virtual pat on the back from all your friends on social media who also practice Emptathy!
Easy for them, easy for you! It’s a win-win!
How dare PhilG diminish their righteousness – what a big jerk!
> They aren’t performing abortions
Your criticism is random non-doctors aren’t performing abortions? Holy shit are you dumb.
My Facebook friends certainly are not “non-doctors”! How do you think that I keep all of my fentanyl prescriptions current? Ironically, one of the most vociferous sources of anti-Trump and pro-abortion content is an IVF doctor. He gets paid $50,000 to $100,000 per baby produced via various fertility treatments and spends the money on fuel for his private aircraft. I’ve never seen him post about having volunteered at a nearby abortion clinic nor about having added “abortion care” to the menu of services available at the fertility clinic in which he is a partner.
Note that providing abortion care to men, women, and other pregnant people, does not require an MD in at least some U.S. states. Even the ob-gyn specialists who might seem like the obvious recipients of most of the abortion industry revenue specifically advocate that neither ob-gyn experience nor an MD should be required. See https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2014/11/abortion-training-and-education (“opposing restrictions that limit abortion provision to physicians only or obstetrician–gynecologists only”).
(We can see the same pattern of behavior among doctors who are politicians. California Democrat Raul Ruiz, an Emergency Medicine doc, posts on social media about his passion for abortion, but he is not doing abortions when Congress is in recess or on weekends. https://ruiz.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/lawmakers-state-positions-possible-end-roe-versus-wade
California Democrat Ami Bera, a family medicine doctor, similarly is passionate about doctors other than him/her/zir/theirself performing abortions. https://bera.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-bera-votes-to-protect-women-s-health-care-and-reproductive-rights Dr./Rep. Bera even got an award from Planned Parenthood, but if he loves abortions why doesn’t Dr. Bera volunteer at Planned Parenthood during peak abortion season?)
Second Anonymous: Nice strawman and a great example how the virtue signaling class reacts if someone dares to point out their hypocrisy. I’ve seen this so many times in software cliques on Twitter: The people whose entire career is built on virtue signaling and being in the right woke circle go ballistic over any mention of hypocrisy. After all, their salaries depend on the illusion! (On Twitter, your comment might have gotten 100,000 likes.)
Original Ano, > They aren’t performing abortions
Actually I double down on this point from Philip. If someone feels strongly (and immorally) about abortion being human right that must be free, why wouldn’t he/she/zit/… go to medical school, obtain necessary degrees and qualifications and provide free abortions? Walk the walk, not just talk the talk and claim other to pay for universal abortions. There were doctors who provided free medical services to the poor, after spending their own cash for medical degree and supplies, and in addition provided free medicine and food to the the need patients.
Not just insist that others spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and many years of their lives for obtaining medical credentials and provide that service.
@perplexed
do you require every 2nd Amendment advocate to work at a gun factory?
Does every forced-birth advocate have to run an orphanage?
The Second Amendment analogy is interesting. The people I know who are passionate about the Second Amendment do take at least the step of buying one or more guns for themselves. They don’t advocate “free” (taxpayer-funded) guns for everyone who wants one, though, the way that my friends who are passionate about abortion do. And they don’t say that there is a shortage of guns (but there was an ammo shortage so maybe they should have to work in an ammo factory or make ammo at home?) whereas abortion advocates say that they’re upset by what they say is the limited size of the abortion industry.
Should those who loudly advocate on Facebook or Twitter to restrict abortion, e.g., to 14 weeks (the French limit) or 12 weeks (the German limit), be forced to set up orphanages? In principle, I think “yes”! However, I’m not sure that would be necessary in the U.S. Except in Maskachusetts and a few other states, there are already some time-based limits on abortion and no orphanages have been required (infants get adopted).
Remember that if you’re a U.S. taxpayer you’re already paying more than 100 percent of the cost of rearing children of those who don’t work or who have low W-2/1099 income. Not only will you pay for the child’s house, you’ll also pay for housing for the adult who has custody of that child. You’ll pay for both the child’s and adult’s food, health care, smartphone, and home broadband. You’ll pay for the child’s education right through a bachelor’s degree (Pell Grants and/or student loans that will be forgiven). So a taxpayer who advocates against abortion is not a hypocrite. He/she/ze/they will actually have to pay for any additional children produced as a result of abortion restrictions so long as those children do not live in high-income households (and even then, he/she/ze/they will pay for K-12 education, a litany of tax credits, parental leave, etc.).
If you have Democrat friends and are against surveillance, here is a curious piece from a Stanford researcher that links Roe and the right to encryption (!):
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2022/05/end-roe-will-bring-about-sea-change-encryption-debate
I do not find the comparison very convincing, but the article is a goldmine for the social justice type argumentation style that Democrats respond to (they might be put off by the libertarian heresy that shines through in the article though).
The article is of course correct that encryption is a human right and that surveillance will be abused. We can now ask Joe Biden: “Do you want to stand with people who supported the Clipper Chip [i.e., Biden him/her/zir/theirself] and who want to abolish Roe, or do you want to be on the right side of history?”
That is a great article. “the way things are going, the Supreme Court’s position will soon be that we have more privacy rights in our phones than in our own bodies”
It completely ignores the fact that the Europeans are abortion haters (by our abortion-loving standards; time limit of 12 weeks in Germany compared to 24 weeks/unlimited in Maskachusetts) and encryption lovers.
“The treasure troves of Americans’ digital data are about to be weaponized against us by law enforcement to imprison people for having abortions, stillbirths, and miscarriages.”
I wonder if this can be true. The U.S. hasn’t been able to gather simple data regarding COVID-19, e.g., who died, who got vaccinated, who caught the disease from whom, etc. But now the FBI (which assigned 15 agents to figure out who put a noose in a garage and never did find the culprit; https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndal/pr/joint-statement-us-attorney-jay-e-town-and-fbi-special-agent-charge-johnnie-sharp-jr ) is going to look at mobile phone location data to figure out which pregnant men traveled to Boston or San Francisco and got abortions at a clinic? How did the FBI know that the men were pregnant? Credit card records from purchasing home pregnancy tests? Can the FBI prove that the men went to the clinic for an abortion rather than to investigate volunteer opportunities?
If the moral stance of other States in the US is so irrelevant, how come you guys had a Civil War about it?
This is a really interesting analogy. Abortion as an issue has many parallels with slavery. The abolitionist movement was a primarily religious movement, bolstered by the Second Great Awakening and founded on a belief that all people, including black people, are children of God and thus deserving of the same God-given rights. A primary issue of contention leading up to the Civil War were the Fugitive Slave Acts, in which the South wanted the Federal Government to force the North to return runaway slaves – thus forcing Northern states to participate in slavery against their will. The refusal of Northern states to do so was a central reason given by South Carolina in their secession: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/reasons.htm
The anti-abortion movement is also a primarily religious movement in which abortion is opposed on the same grounds: human life is sacred and we have a moral obligation to protect it. I think we can safely conclude that the abolitionists of the 1800s would also oppose abortion.
/df, short answer is that American Civil War started because confederates attacked and sieged US – owned forts and killed US soldiers.
/df: I’m not sure that the Civil War was about slavery. The Union was happy to continue enslaving people for the entire war. After two years of war, Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves… everywhere other than in the Union. And Lincoln himself said that he would have been happy to preserve his control over all of the states without freeing any slaves. For most of the Civil War, there were Union-controlled slaves toiling just a few miles from the White House. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Maryland
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” (Lincoln, August 22, 1862)
/df: Now that I think about it some more, the situation is similar in more ways to 1861. Even without the issue of abortion, there are a lot of people who find it intolerable to share a single country with those whose value systems are different. I referenced
https://patch.com/california/san-francisco/sf-now-boycotting-most-united-states
in the original post for its map of the 28 states (filled with bad people) boycotted by the good people of San Francisco. In 1861 there were a lot of commercial and cultural incompatibilities between the agricultural south and industrializing north.
@RS, indeed, from what I’ve read, it was also religious campaigners who managed ca. 1900 to institute the prohibition of abortion that applied in various ways until R v W. Previously, under Common Law, abortion was effectively legal up to the point of “quickening”, a stage that only the pregnant woman could determine if it might have been in doubt.
Regarding Ft Sumter, the question is how or whether a moral dispute led to its bombardment, assuming it was not just a personal issue between the rebel commander and his former W Point instructor commanding the fort.
>I’m not sure that the Civil War was about slavery.
That’s because you’re an idiot who refutes basic tenants of understood history.
[Philip: I asked the moderator to leave this one because it simultaneously accuses another person of being an idiot while using the word “tenant” (whose rent is up 50-70 percent here in Jupiter compared to a year ago) rather than “tenet”. The comment is therefore a thing of beauty.]
philg: Woke PBS agrees with you:
https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/
A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery.
In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.
@fact_checker
Philip said it wasn’t about _slavery_. The distinctions of morality versus economics are beyond his godlike perspective on the matter.
Anon: Missing context! /df was talking about the “moral stance”, philg replied “I’m not sure that the Civil War was about slavery.” Most people would assume that the context is still the “moral stance”, which could have been a veneer for the real reasons. Most people would also assume that the reply essentially meant “Hey, maybe there were other hidden reasons …” instead of treating it as a PhD thesis.
Quick search shows that Philip is not totally wrong: “John “Jack” Jackson, who died in 1875, goes down in New Jersey history as the last slave in the state.” https://hudpost.com/last-known-new-jersey-slave-lived-in-north-bergen-read-jacks-story/1875 is a decade after American Civil War and New Jersey was a union state. Also this resource claims somewhat softer gun control laws in New Jersey during colonial period. It appears that gun prohibitions were used to keep enslaved people down, but they were not total and a shadow of what modern free inhabitants and guests of New Jersey experience today: “Enslaved people were also prohibited to carry firearms when not in the company of their masters, and anyone who gave or lent a gun to a slave faced a fine of 20 shillings.” https://caisctnorthernslavery.wordpress.com/2020/12/16/how-can-we-learn-more-about-the-last-slave-in-new-jersey/
Saying that I do not know how anyone who read Lincoln-Douglas debates https://www.c-span.org/series/?LincolnDouglas thinks that Lincoln was not against slavery. He was for ending slavery in all states, unlike antislavery Democrat Douglas who was open for compromises with slave states but which slave states considered insufficient.
The Vice-President of the Confederacy himself disagreed with you:
“The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. […] Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”
–Alexander Stephens, March 21, 1861.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
Not sure this is Democrat/Republican issue for women. I personally know about a dozen, hardcore, Orange County, California Republican, Trump-loving women who are furious that this may be overturned.
Jim, the subject in question is not abortion itself, but “Why are residents of Democrat-run states so upset …?” Were your Republican ladies going to move to Alabama from Orange County, California? I am yet to meet a single remotely conservative (aka married) woman who even talks about this, including card – carrying Democrats and Democrat activists.
Jim: As perplexed said, what would be fascinating to know is why they’re furious. They live in the abortion paradise of California. Why are they furious about the potential for fewer abortions happening in some other states? And, if they’re furious about a reduction in abortions in, say, Alabama, why aren’t they similarly furious about the illegality of abortion in Costa Rica, for example?
From listening to their conversations during our regular Happy Hour excursions, I gather it’s the fact that a women in the affected states will no longer be able to decide what’s right for her. Some, came from the south and have family there. Empathy, I guess.
As far as Costa Rica goes, they aren’t repealing a 50 year old law.