The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
But not all rights are determined by a democratic process. In most developed countries including the USA, many rights are part of an overriding Constitution which protects people from transient changes in majority rule. The UK is the major exception. So it is not so simple as saying that everything should be democracy, when nobody at all in the USA thinks their Constitution should be abolished.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
It's not a ghost. It's probably someone opened a door or window elsewhere in the building.
I am the only person here. My house is a big u-shaped granite building with the house in the south wing and the first floor, with the old bank in the middle and north wing on the ground floor.
The doors in the bank make a distinctive noise. Nobody here to slam them yet now and then they slam. Have seen Jim with my own eyes crossing from one room into another about 15 feet ahead of me upstairs in the house.
I was the sceptic until I moved here. But I can't ignore my own senses. Have seen and heard Jim, heard the little Scottish girl, and seen the cat - 3 ghosts that we know of. All of whom have their own personalities. Can't ignore the objects placed and dropped and moved and the doors opening and closing by themselves.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
Since it’s your manor, any skinny on the mysterious murder of the bank manager in Nairn in 2004? At the time various theories were punted from drug dealers to international financial skulduggery, but it appears now to be down to a planning dispute over decking at a local hotel. There’s something terrifically NE of Scotland about that..
Is that the one they made a TV series out of?
Dunno, missed it if they did. This the event and aftermath..
Yep that was it - bank manager opened the door, shot dead, no one knew why. Was a v boring series (as it at that time was inconclusive so no denouement).
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
A democratic process subject to the veto of 40 senators.
And the 20 smallest states represent 10% of the population (so their senators represent 5-6% of national votes) but between them they have a veto.
BoZo should have hidden in a fridge again this morning
He is to address the Ukraine Parliament this morning, the first Western leader to do so, so not hiding in a fridge
I'm with you BigG.
Boris must go ..then again he is the greatest Wartime Prime Minister since Churchill, and he didn't really break any Covid rules, and the Gray report must be canned because it was written by a Labour shill, and Starmer broke loads of rules whilst Boris was ambushed by a cake. Phew!
Boris must go but he is recognised by Ukraine and their President for the support they have received in their fight against the war criminal that is Putin
Boris broke the covid rules and there is no dispute about that
Starmer may or may not have broken covid rules but they lied about Rayners's attendance and he looks uncomfortable when being asked questions by journalists. The media will no doubt only be satisfied when he agrees to a review and interview by Durham Police but as one voter said this morning, 'they are all the same' and that is a fairly widespread view
SKS didn't break the covid rules. And is being wrong about one person attending one of very many meetings receding into memory, in a busy day, a crime?
I think you ought to report yourself to the police for not ebing able to tell us instantly what size of spanner the lady on Mr Parrish's tractor movie was holding.
Starmer saying he didn't break the covid regulations is being challenged by Richard Holden, MP, the mail and others including 2 students who want the police to review the video they took
There is nothing unreasonable about questioning the veracity of those events
I don’t know why Labour continues with this line that it doesn’t matter and there is nothing to see here. If there was truly nothing, you think they would have a better argument. It’s clear from yours - who is not a Tory-at-any-cost voter - plus arguably the Best PM polling that the voters are sceptical of Labour’s stance. Blaming it on the machinations of the Daily Mail is a lazy argument.
Mudslinging. Dirty tricks. Negative campaigning.
It’s a fact in absence of any new significant evidence since last investigated, The Tories merely doing a throw spaghetti at the wall see what sticks. What significant new evidence has emerged that warrants a new or reopened investigation? The Tories and mail have brought nothing forward, they merely hoping the police could find some, but that is not how the process works, not how justice works.
The killer fact, unlike when the Tories partied during lockdown in Westminster, at this particular time of Starmer’s working meal, the rules were you could do a working meal in office. Unless Tories or friends in media, or anyone in public such as caterer who delivered a feast, comes forward with evidence it was different than the first investigation concluded, then it quite rightly remains closed. Simples.
With most workplaces, if you have alcohol during work time - especially during work time - it’s a sackable offence.
Anyway, take it you believe the “it was a honest mistake we forgot about Rayner” line. Given that, I’m sure you will be generous if BJ trots out the same line.
Here's your problem. The police have established this to be a legal campaign event. So Rayner being forgotten about is about as big as crime as me forgetting that I bought a sandwich last week.
TBH, I don’t really care who did what. A lot of people broke lockdown rules. And SKS having a beer is not a capital offence.
What he should do though is, if he criticising someone’s else’s behaviour, is be whiter than white. His attempts to explain it all don’t seem that great either. Same for his supporters as well. If you are going to demand BJ resigns and in the same breath say “it’s all overblown with Starmer” you’re backing your side not playing the facts.
In any event, what we think doesn’t matter, it’s what the wider public thanks and there seems a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that people are not really buying the excuses of SKS.
His attempts to explain it all don’t seem that great either. It being the legal campaign event. He doesn't have to explain legal things.
you’re backing your side They are not my side. I am a member of a different party.
not playing the facts. the facts that the event was a legal campaign event?
These students made a complaint and submitted their video as evidence. The police review the evidence, confirm the law at the time and say "no evidence of an offence". These are the facts. The rest is desperate political smear by the guilty.
As I keep saying, if you want a society where I can compel the police to keep investigating your legal activities by making baseless complaints without any evidence, then keep going the way you are.
I have seen pictures of SKS with a beer with apparently some party workers (no idea when, or what the rules were at that time).
But if the rules were the same as they were for cakegate then a reasonable person would think that if Boris was in the wrong so was SKS.
That is what the Tories are hoping. That its different rules at different times for completely different things doesn't matter - they hope.
We'll find out on Thursday. Appears they believe it will be brutal as they're now saying they will lose 400,000,000 councillors so that if its only 350 they will proclaim victory. Which works for a day or so until the Met drop the big stack of FPNs that have been waiting for the election then the Gray report.
BoZo should have hidden in a fridge again this morning
He is to address the Ukraine Parliament this morning, the first Western leader to do so, so not hiding in a fridge
I'm with you BigG.
Boris must go ..then again he is the greatest Wartime Prime Minister since Churchill, and he didn't really break any Covid rules, and the Gray report must be canned because it was written by a Labour shill, and Starmer broke loads of rules whilst Boris was ambushed by a cake. Phew!
Boris must go but he is recognised by Ukraine and their President for the support they have received in their fight against the war criminal that is Putin
Boris broke the covid rules and there is no dispute about that
Starmer may or may not have broken covid rules but they lied about Rayners's attendance and he looks uncomfortable when being asked questions by journalists. The media will no doubt only be satisfied when he agrees to a review and interview by Durham Police but as one voter said this morning, 'they are all the same' and that is a fairly widespread view
SKS didn't break the covid rules. And is being wrong about one person attending one of very many meetings receding into memory, in a busy day, a crime?
I think you ought to report yourself to the police for not ebing able to tell us instantly what size of spanner the lady on Mr Parrish's tractor movie was holding.
Starmer saying he didn't break the covid regulations is being challenged by Richard Holden, MP, the mail and others including 2 students who want the police to review the video they took
There is nothing unreasonable about questioning the veracity of those events
I don’t know why Labour continues with this line that it doesn’t matter and there is nothing to see here. If there was truly nothing, you think they would have a better argument. It’s clear from yours - who is not a Tory-at-any-cost voter - plus arguably the Best PM polling that the voters are sceptical of Labour’s stance. Blaming it on the machinations of the Daily Mail is a lazy argument.
Mudslinging. Dirty tricks. Negative campaigning.
It’s a fact in absence of any new significant evidence since last investigated, The Tories merely doing a throw spaghetti at the wall see what sticks. What significant new evidence has emerged that warrants a new or reopened investigation? The Tories and mail have brought nothing forward, they merely hoping the police could find some, but that is not how the process works, not how justice works.
The killer fact, unlike when the Tories partied during lockdown in Westminster, at this particular time of Starmer’s working meal, the rules were you could do a working meal in office. Unless Tories or friends in media, or anyone in public such as caterer who delivered a feast, comes forward with evidence it was different than the first investigation concluded, then it quite rightly remains closed. Simples.
With most workplaces, if you have alcohol during work time - especially during work time - it’s a sackable offence.
Anyway, take it you believe the “it was a honest mistake we forgot about Rayner” line. Given that, I’m sure you will be generous if BJ trots out the same line.
Here's your problem. The police have established this to be a legal campaign event. So Rayner being forgotten about is about as big as crime as me forgetting that I bought a sandwich last week.
TBH, I don’t really care who did what. A lot of people broke lockdown rules. And SKS having a beer is not a capital offence.
What he should do though is, if he criticising someone’s else’s behaviour, is be whiter than white. His attempts to explain it all don’t seem that great either. Same for his supporters as well. If you are going to demand BJ resigns and in the same breath say “it’s all overblown with Starmer” you’re backing your side not playing the facts.
In any event, what we think doesn’t matter, it’s what the wider public thanks and there seems a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that people are not really buying the excuses of SKS.
His attempts to explain it all don’t seem that great either. It being the legal campaign event. He doesn't have to explain legal things.
you’re backing your side They are not my side. I am a member of a different party.
not playing the facts. the facts that the event was a legal campaign event?
These students made a complaint and submitted their video as evidence. The police review the evidence, confirm the law at the time and say "no evidence of an offence". These are the facts. The rest is desperate political smear by the guilty.
As I keep saying, if you want a society where I can compel the police to keep investigating your legal activities by making baseless complaints without any evidence, then keep going the way you are.
I have seen pictures of SKS with a beer with apparently some party workers (no idea when, or what the rules were at that time).
But if the rules were the same as they were for cakegate then a reasonable person would think that if Boris was in the wrong so was SKS.
In some ways seems to me that SKS should be more prone to a FPN than BJ as BJ was in the Cabinet Room during the working day, a room that he has meetings in numerous times in a week. Im not sure how often SKS works in the Dirham Constituency Office.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
BoZo should have hidden in a fridge again this morning
He is to address the Ukraine Parliament this morning, the first Western leader to do so, so not hiding in a fridge
I'm with you BigG.
Boris must go ..then again he is the greatest Wartime Prime Minister since Churchill, and he didn't really break any Covid rules, and the Gray report must be canned because it was written by a Labour shill, and Starmer broke loads of rules whilst Boris was ambushed by a cake. Phew!
Boris must go but he is recognised by Ukraine and their President for the support they have received in their fight against the war criminal that is Putin
Boris broke the covid rules and there is no dispute about that
Starmer may or may not have broken covid rules but they lied about Rayners's attendance and he looks uncomfortable when being asked questions by journalists. The media will no doubt only be satisfied when he agrees to a review and interview by Durham Police but as one voter said this morning, 'they are all the same' and that is a fairly widespread view
SKS didn't break the covid rules. And is being wrong about one person attending one of very many meetings receding into memory, in a busy day, a crime?
I think you ought to report yourself to the police for not ebing able to tell us instantly what size of spanner the lady on Mr Parrish's tractor movie was holding.
Starmer saying he didn't break the covid regulations is being challenged by Richard Holden, MP, the mail and others including 2 students who want the police to review the video they took
There is nothing unreasonable about questioning the veracity of those events
I don’t know why Labour continues with this line that it doesn’t matter and there is nothing to see here. If there was truly nothing, you think they would have a better argument. It’s clear from yours - who is not a Tory-at-any-cost voter - plus arguably the Best PM polling that the voters are sceptical of Labour’s stance. Blaming it on the machinations of the Daily Mail is a lazy argument.
Mudslinging. Dirty tricks. Negative campaigning.
It’s a fact in absence of any new significant evidence since last investigated, The Tories merely doing a throw spaghetti at the wall see what sticks. What significant new evidence has emerged that warrants a new or reopened investigation? The Tories and mail have brought nothing forward, they merely hoping the police could find some, but that is not how the process works, not how justice works.
The killer fact, unlike when the Tories partied during lockdown in Westminster, at this particular time of Starmer’s working meal, the rules were you could do a working meal in office. Unless Tories or friends in media, or anyone in public such as caterer who delivered a feast, comes forward with evidence it was different than the first investigation concluded, then it quite rightly remains closed. Simples.
With most workplaces, if you have alcohol during work time - especially during work time - it’s a sackable offence.
Anyway, take it you believe the “it was a honest mistake we forgot about Rayner” line. Given that, I’m sure you will be generous if BJ trots out the same line.
Here's your problem. The police have established this to be a legal campaign event. So Rayner being forgotten about is about as big as crime as me forgetting that I bought a sandwich last week.
TBH, I don’t really care who did what. A lot of people broke lockdown rules. And SKS having a beer is not a capital offence.
What he should do though is, if he criticising someone’s else’s behaviour, is be whiter than white. His attempts to explain it all don’t seem that great either. Same for his supporters as well. If you are going to demand BJ resigns and in the same breath say “it’s all overblown with Starmer” you’re backing your side not playing the facts.
In any event, what we think doesn’t matter, it’s what the wider public thanks and there seems a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that people are not really buying the excuses of SKS.
His attempts to explain it all don’t seem that great either. It being the legal campaign event. He doesn't have to explain legal things.
you’re backing your side They are not my side. I am a member of a different party.
not playing the facts. the facts that the event was a legal campaign event?
These students made a complaint and submitted their video as evidence. The police review the evidence, confirm the law at the time and say "no evidence of an offence". These are the facts. The rest is desperate political smear by the guilty.
As I keep saying, if you want a society where I can compel the police to keep investigating your legal activities by making baseless complaints without any evidence, then keep going the way you are.
I have seen pictures of SKS with a beer with apparently some party workers (no idea when, or what the rules were at that time).
But if the rules were the same as they were for cakegate then a reasonable person would think that if Boris was in the wrong so was SKS.
That is what the Tories are hoping. That its different rules at different times for completely different things doesn't matter - they hope.
We'll find out on Thursday. Appears they believe it will be brutal as they're now saying they will lose 400,000,000 councillors so that if its only 350 they will proclaim victory. Which works for a day or so until the Met drop the big stack of FPNs that have been waiting for the election then the Gray report.
Oh. Was it different rules? What were they when SKS was doing his thing?
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
A democratic process subject to the veto of 40 senators.
And the 20 smallest states represent 10% of the population (so their senators represent 5-6% of national votes) but between them they have a veto.
As reflects the US is a Federal nation built on states' rights
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
It's not a ghost. It's probably someone opened a door or window elsewhere in the building.
I am the only person here. My house is a big u-shaped granite building with the house in the south wing and the first floor, with the old bank in the middle and north wing on the ground floor.
The doors in the bank make a distinctive noise. Nobody here to slam them yet now and then they slam. Have seen Jim with my own eyes crossing from one room into another about 15 feet ahead of me upstairs in the house.
I was the sceptic until I moved here. But I can't ignore my own senses. Have seen and heard Jim, heard the little Scottish girl, and seen the cat - 3 ghosts that we know of. All of whom have their own personalities. Can't ignore the objects placed and dropped and moved and the doors opening and closing by themselves.
Its not scary. But it is real.
It is absolutely real in that your mind created those things. But a ghost it is not.
BoZo should have hidden in a fridge again this morning
He is to address the Ukraine Parliament this morning, the first Western leader to do so, so not hiding in a fridge
I'm with you BigG.
Boris must go ..then again he is the greatest Wartime Prime Minister since Churchill, and he didn't really break any Covid rules, and the Gray report must be canned because it was written by a Labour shill, and Starmer broke loads of rules whilst Boris was ambushed by a cake. Phew!
Boris must go but he is recognised by Ukraine and their President for the support they have received in their fight against the war criminal that is Putin
Boris broke the covid rules and there is no dispute about that
Starmer may or may not have broken covid rules but they lied about Rayners's attendance and he looks uncomfortable when being asked questions by journalists. The media will no doubt only be satisfied when he agrees to a review and interview by Durham Police but as one voter said this morning, 'they are all the same' and that is a fairly widespread view
SKS didn't break the covid rules. And is being wrong about one person attending one of very many meetings receding into memory, in a busy day, a crime?
I think you ought to report yourself to the police for not ebing able to tell us instantly what size of spanner the lady on Mr Parrish's tractor movie was holding.
Starmer saying he didn't break the covid regulations is being challenged by Richard Holden, MP, the mail and others including 2 students who want the police to review the video they took
There is nothing unreasonable about questioning the veracity of those events
I don’t know why Labour continues with this line that it doesn’t matter and there is nothing to see here. If there was truly nothing, you think they would have a better argument. It’s clear from yours - who is not a Tory-at-any-cost voter - plus arguably the Best PM polling that the voters are sceptical of Labour’s stance. Blaming it on the machinations of the Daily Mail is a lazy argument.
Mudslinging. Dirty tricks. Negative campaigning.
It’s a fact in absence of any new significant evidence since last investigated, The Tories merely doing a throw spaghetti at the wall see what sticks. What significant new evidence has emerged that warrants a new or reopened investigation? The Tories and mail have brought nothing forward, they merely hoping the police could find some, but that is not how the process works, not how justice works.
The killer fact, unlike when the Tories partied during lockdown in Westminster, at this particular time of Starmer’s working meal, the rules were you could do a working meal in office. Unless Tories or friends in media, or anyone in public such as caterer who delivered a feast, comes forward with evidence it was different than the first investigation concluded, then it quite rightly remains closed. Simples.
With most workplaces, if you have alcohol during work time - especially during work time - it’s a sackable offence.
Anyway, take it you believe the “it was a honest mistake we forgot about Rayner” line. Given that, I’m sure you will be generous if BJ trots out the same line.
Here's your problem. The police have established this to be a legal campaign event. So Rayner being forgotten about is about as big as crime as me forgetting that I bought a sandwich last week.
TBH, I don’t really care who did what. A lot of people broke lockdown rules. And SKS having a beer is not a capital offence.
What he should do though is, if he criticising someone’s else’s behaviour, is be whiter than white. His attempts to explain it all don’t seem that great either. Same for his supporters as well. If you are going to demand BJ resigns and in the same breath say “it’s all overblown with Starmer” you’re backing your side not playing the facts.
In any event, what we think doesn’t matter, it’s what the wider public thanks and there seems a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that people are not really buying the excuses of SKS.
He escapes the Hall of Mirrors only to find himself back on False Equivalence Alley.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
In a democracy in a Federal nation like the US built on states' rights the states are allowed to do anything they wish not prevented by the US constitution or Federal law.
The US constitution gives rights to free speech, to bear arms, abolition of slavery and against cruel and unusual punishment. It does not give an automatic right to healthcare nor does it give a right to abortion on demand despite what a more liberal SC decided in Roe v Wade.
Respect for a minority of mainly southern states' having the right to impose pro life legislation if they wish is not incompatible with the constituency and does not need to lead to another civil war
The constitutional ban on slavery only happened because the Northern States overthrew the governments of the Southern States, though. The South was challenged because the North could see that Southern slave states were intent on projecting their system extra-terratorially, through eg the Dredd Scott case and efforts to make slavery legal in the Louisiana purchase territories. Southern states will attempt to do the same on abortion by putting legal impediments on women travelling to pro abortion states for treatment or shipping in morning after pills from out of state. This will lead to an increasingly angry confrontation between the two sets of states, although obviously I would hope that it won't end in civil war. A constitutional amendment legalising abortion in all of the US would be the first best solution but is impossible to imagine given the way the population is distributed (ie sparsely populated states with an anti abortion majority would block it).
Respecting the rights of the unborn child is not the same as trying to maintain slavery and does not need a civil war to push abortion on demand on the minority of states that do not want it
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
A democratic process subject to the veto of 40 senators.
And the 20 smallest states represent 10% of the population (so their senators represent 5-6% of national votes) but between them they have a veto.
As reflects the US is a Federal nation built on states' rights
So shall we give Wales, Scotland and NI a veto over England? It is an untenable situation in a very divided country.
You can get 2/1 on the LibDems winning control of Woking Council. 10 of the 30 seats are up for grabs and, knowing the area as I do, I think this is a value bet. They have made steady gains in recent times and they are already the largest party. It's clear that the party machine is up and running hard for this.
I've only seen LibDem posters up and there is a lot of anger directed towards the Conservatives. In addition the tory run minority council has squandered huge amounts of money and the council is now the third most most debt-ridden in the country.
Woking is only 26th on the LD target list for the next general election, no surprise they are targeting it
Although it might be a target in the GE, it is not being especially done so in these local elections. There are no calls for help even from boroughs without election (eg where I am and I am only 5 miles from Woking). It is and has been for many years a very tight and actively fought borough by both the Tories an LDs and with a Tory run borough who are in a minority and with financial issues it is prime territory for LD gains to take overall control. Just a tough set of circumstances for the Tories here really.
I expect the heaviest Tory losses on Thursday to be in anti Brexit areas which most dislike Boris.
Woking was 56% Remain, similar councils in Remain areas of the Home Counties like Guildford and South Oxfordshire have already gone LD so I would not be surprised to see the LDs take it.
The Tories are also likely to lose Tunbridge Wells on Thursday too partly for the same reasons as well as local factors
I agree generally, but sometimes local factors are a bigger aspect as you point out re Tunbridge Wells. That is certainly the case with Guildford. Guildford is not LD controlled. It is in coalition with Indies and the Indies made the bigger wins (some wards by huge margins eg mine). This was because of Tory scandals and the local plan. You only have to speak to Mole Valley Tories to find out about what happened to the Guildford Tories. No love lost at the time.
Re Tunbridge Wells - I have no knowledge although I used to live in Crowborough but lost contact now. A lovely area in which I believe you used to live also.
Remind me, what went down in Guildford? In Woking, the attitude of the council has been "it's either tower blocks or building houses on green spaces and golf courses."
But I don't see any tower blocks in Guildford, so I guess they went for new housing estates like this one:
Hi @tlg86 I wondered if you would post as I know you are in Woking. I lived in the Borough from being 9 until my early 30s and can tell lots of stories, some quite funny.
Guildford Tories implosion is a long story and pre dates the local plan. There was infighting, a councillor sent down for corruption related to this stuff, an attempted coup to try and impose an elected mayor, corruption in getting the signatures for the referendum which was eventually lost by 90%. 20,000 written objections (yes really 20,000) against the local plan, which was an utter shambles, but passed on the eve of the local election that they knew they were going to lose. Fell out with the Mole Valley Tories over all this.
Needless to say a significant number of Tories defected to the newly formed Indies. The LDs picked up what would have been their typical targets. The Indies stood in the safe Tory wards and slaughtered them with huge margins.
I live in a rock solid safe Tory ward. It now has 3 Indy borough councillors and a Indy county councillor.
That really is a brief summary. What happened really isn't a fair reflection on proper Tories and I'm sure they will be back, but they have been thrown out by their own supporters.
But is it simply nimbyism that did for the Tories? That is, we don't want tower blocks and we don't want new housing estates either.
No I don't think so. That is going on all over the SE. This was far more extreme which is why a number of the Tories left and joined the Indies.
Also @tlg86 there were 2 indie groups one more nimby than the other. The less nimby one was more popular although they did cooperate.
I think it is also worth noting this was an example of what myself and @NickPalmer and others were talking about the other day. The Indie group was not made up of wet Tories but a cross section, some from the right of the party and also LDs joined as well as non aligned people. They weren't anti Tory, they were anti what the Tory group had done. As Nick mentioned most stuff isn't political and they get on and do it regardless of their political views 90% of the time.
The Tory losses were not because they were Tory, but because what they did, which had nothing to do with politics.
A similar thing happened in my old ward. The Tories used to get c 60%. Respected councillor was expelled from the Party after making bullying accusations against the Leader. She stood as an Indy, and has got over 70% of the vote on all three occasions since. With the Tories barely clinging on to second. She took great delight in propping up a Labour minority for a while. It has completely changed the political mentality of a village which used to vote Tory by rote.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
...this is a good documentary about the legalisation of abortion in UK, or rather mainly on what it was like before legalisation. (Conflict of interest statement: I know the producer and my dad's an interviewee.)
It paints a picture of what things might be like in US states that criminalise abortion, although the introduction of pharmacological methods for early abortion change the situation somewhat.
That also makes it more likely, in US states which ban abortion, that any miscarriages will be investigated by law enforcement.
(Had to remove your link as it was doing horrid things to the HTML)
Yes, and the "criminalisation" of miscarriage will be another horrendous outcome. But the ease of pharmaceutical measures will hopefully make for safer and easier to hide illegal abortions.
It is awful that we're getting to a situation where we must have such a discussion!
BoZo should have hidden in a fridge again this morning
He is to address the Ukraine Parliament this morning, the first Western leader to do so, so not hiding in a fridge
I'm with you BigG.
Boris must go ..then again he is the greatest Wartime Prime Minister since Churchill, and he didn't really break any Covid rules, and the Gray report must be canned because it was written by a Labour shill, and Starmer broke loads of rules whilst Boris was ambushed by a cake. Phew!
Boris must go but he is recognised by Ukraine and their President for the support they have received in their fight against the war criminal that is Putin
Boris broke the covid rules and there is no dispute about that
Starmer may or may not have broken covid rules but they lied about Rayners's attendance and he looks uncomfortable when being asked questions by journalists. The media will no doubt only be satisfied when he agrees to a review and interview by Durham Police but as one voter said this morning, 'they are all the same' and that is a fairly widespread view
Beergate has to a large extent been largely dismissed by most as an irrelevance, by most media outlets and pretty well all political groups other than specifically Johnsonian Conservatives. Nonetheless those who want to believe it, like you, believe it, and they believe it dilutes the Partygate issue for Johnson.
Labour and Starmer in particular seem rather naive and incredulous as to what Lynton Crosby's stormtroopers have planned for them and are clueless as to how to defend themselves. Johnson and Crosby fight dirty!
The government has quietly lost COVID and many of the public has got the impression it is not a problem anymore, discarding masks, ignoring social distancing and being discouraged, through pricing, of testing themselves.. The net result is that over the past two weeks this country has seemingly had the highest death rate in the world! I have had four jabs, weae a mask, even in the Gym, usually the only one, oh yes two regulars went down with it last week. IT is everwhere but we are unaware.
Deaths are falling rapidly. I presume that you are looking at reporting day data rather than the actual day of death data.
The penalty for using reporting day data is to be locked in a small room with Piers Corbyn, Piers Moron and the lawyer with his baseball bat in his wife’s kimono. The only entertainment is reading Conservative Home.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
It's not a ghost. It's probably someone opened a door or window elsewhere in the building.
I am the only person here. My house is a big u-shaped granite building with the house in the south wing and the first floor, with the old bank in the middle and north wing on the ground floor.
The doors in the bank make a distinctive noise. Nobody here to slam them yet now and then they slam. Have seen Jim with my own eyes crossing from one room into another about 15 feet ahead of me upstairs in the house.
I was the sceptic until I moved here. But I can't ignore my own senses. Have seen and heard Jim, heard the little Scottish girl, and seen the cat - 3 ghosts that we know of. All of whom have their own personalities. Can't ignore the objects placed and dropped and moved and the doors opening and closing by themselves.
Its not scary. But it is real.
This saga of the old empty barn makes me think of this old two Ronnie skit
Barker: There now follows a sketch featuring ghosties and ghoulies. Corbett: In which I get caught by the ghosties... Barker: And I get caught by surprise
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
Cool. I'd ask him nicely not to slam doors! What did you see by the way? Fascinated by things like this.
Full figure of a small man. 5'5" maybe. Dark hair, white shirt, dark trousers. Has appeared in various mirrors and even at one point on a Zoom quiz behind Mrs RP.
Upstairs in the house a corridor runs the length of the building. 3 bedroom doors on the right, two small storerooms on the left. At the end is a cross corridor. Very short stub to the right into a bedroom, big store room door facing down the corridor, longer stub to the left into the bathroom.
I was at the top of the stairs heading down the corridor towards the open store room door when I saw my son come out of his room into the store room. Only saw the back of him, shouted "oi" wondering why he had gone in there (we'd had a power trip downstairs and I was heading to the fuse box which is in there. Can see the door the entire time. Nobody in there. And my son is still in his room playing Xbox. Already no longer in his school uniform so not in the white shirt and charcoal trousers I saw which I had assumed to be him.
We associate most of the poltergeist activity (like my big door slam) to Jim. The girl sounds to be maybe 5 (my daughter is 10). A giggle, and has also said "mummy" to Mrs RP and "daddy" to me. Like right behind us. When our daughter is out. And the cat is a dark cat shape that even house guests have seen. We do have a black cat. Who yowls at this other shape. Smaller tabby cat scratches and yowls at a closed wardrobe door like she does if the other one is trapped.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
A democratic process subject to the veto of 40 senators.
This is the key issue. The political system in the US has broken down, largely because of the Republicans, so that the Senate filibuster effectively means the minority -- 40 senators -- get a veto, and given the Senate massively over-represents small states, that means <<40% of the population get a veto. If the US had a democracy like the UK's, they would have legalised abortion through that route decades ago, but they don't.
Meanwhile, the Republicans broke any sense of fair play over SC appointments to produce an overly partisan SC.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
Yeah it's straightforward logical and consistent. It's the pro-life support for assault rifles and executions I find perplexing.
BoZo should have hidden in a fridge again this morning
He is to address the Ukraine Parliament this morning, the first Western leader to do so, so not hiding in a fridge
I'm with you BigG.
Boris must go ..then again he is the greatest Wartime Prime Minister since Churchill, and he didn't really break any Covid rules, and the Gray report must be canned because it was written by a Labour shill, and Starmer broke loads of rules whilst Boris was ambushed by a cake. Phew!
Boris must go but he is recognised by Ukraine and their President for the support they have received in their fight against the war criminal that is Putin
Boris broke the covid rules and there is no dispute about that
Starmer may or may not have broken covid rules but they lied about Rayners's attendance and he looks uncomfortable when being asked questions by journalists. The media will no doubt only be satisfied when he agrees to a review and interview by Durham Police but as one voter said this morning, 'they are all the same' and that is a fairly widespread view
SKS didn't break the covid rules. And is being wrong about one person attending one of very many meetings receding into memory, in a busy day, a crime?
I think you ought to report yourself to the police for not ebing able to tell us instantly what size of spanner the lady on Mr Parrish's tractor movie was holding.
Starmer saying he didn't break the covid regulations is being challenged by Richard Holden, MP, the mail and others including 2 students who want the police to review the video they took
There is nothing unreasonable about questioning the veracity of those events
I don’t know why Labour continues with this line that it doesn’t matter and there is nothing to see here. If there was truly nothing, you think they would have a better argument. It’s clear from yours - who is not a Tory-at-any-cost voter - plus arguably the Best PM polling that the voters are sceptical of Labour’s stance. Blaming it on the machinations of the Daily Mail is a lazy argument.
Mudslinging. Dirty tricks. Negative campaigning.
It’s a fact in absence of any new significant evidence since last investigated, The Tories merely doing a throw spaghetti at the wall see what sticks. What significant new evidence has emerged that warrants a new or reopened investigation? The Tories and mail have brought nothing forward, they merely hoping the police could find some, but that is not how the process works, not how justice works.
The killer fact, unlike when the Tories partied during lockdown in Westminster, at this particular time of Starmer’s working meal, the rules were you could do a working meal in office. Unless Tories or friends in media, or anyone in public such as caterer who delivered a feast, comes forward with evidence it was different than the first investigation concluded, then it quite rightly remains closed. Simples.
With most workplaces, if you have alcohol during work time - especially during work time - it’s a sackable offence.
Anyway, take it you believe the “it was a honest mistake we forgot about Rayner” line. Given that, I’m sure you will be generous if BJ trots out the same line.
Here's your problem. The police have established this to be a legal campaign event. So Rayner being forgotten about is about as big as crime as me forgetting that I bought a sandwich last week.
TBH, I don’t really care who did what. A lot of people broke lockdown rules. And SKS having a beer is not a capital offence.
What he should do though is, if he criticising someone’s else’s behaviour, is be whiter than white. His attempts to explain it all don’t seem that great either. Same for his supporters as well. If you are going to demand BJ resigns and in the same breath say “it’s all overblown with Starmer” you’re backing your side not playing the facts.
In any event, what we think doesn’t matter, it’s what the wider public thanks and there seems a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that people are not really buying the excuses of SKS.
His attempts to explain it all don’t seem that great either. It being the legal campaign event. He doesn't have to explain legal things.
you’re backing your side They are not my side. I am a member of a different party.
not playing the facts. the facts that the event was a legal campaign event?
These students made a complaint and submitted their video as evidence. The police review the evidence, confirm the law at the time and say "no evidence of an offence". These are the facts. The rest is desperate political smear by the guilty.
As I keep saying, if you want a society where I can compel the police to keep investigating your legal activities by making baseless complaints without any evidence, then keep going the way you are.
I have seen pictures of SKS with a beer with apparently some party workers (no idea when, or what the rules were at that time).
But if the rules were the same as they were for cakegate then a reasonable person would think that if Boris was in the wrong so was SKS.
That is what the Tories are hoping. That its different rules at different times for completely different things doesn't matter - they hope.
We'll find out on Thursday. Appears they believe it will be brutal as they're now saying they will lose 400,000,000 councillors so that if its only 350 they will proclaim victory. Which works for a day or so until the Met drop the big stack of FPNs that have been waiting for the election then the Gray report.
Oh. Was it different rules? What were they when SKS was doing his thing?
I'm not going sifting through Twitter but they have been posted by others. At the time of this April 21 beer/curry scandal campaigning was allowed and explicitly mentioned. Much of the law had been rescinded and dropped to guidance only ("you should not") as opposed to the previous legal "you must not" as was operational for the various Downing Street parties.
"The regulations at the time" is what Durham Plod cited when they reviewed the video and decided no evidence of criminal activity.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere...
That is also hard to understand. If a month old foetus is an independent life, why does it require the mother ?
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
In a democracy in a Federal nation like the US built on states' rights the states are allowed to do anything they wish not prevented by the US constitution or Federal law.
The US constitution gives rights to free speech, to bear arms, abolition of slavery and against cruel and unusual punishment. It does not give an automatic right to healthcare nor does it give a right to abortion on demand despite what a more liberal SC decided in Roe v Wade.
Respect for a minority of mainly southern states' having the right to impose pro life legislation if they wish is not incompatible with the constituency and does not need to lead to another civil war
The constitutional ban on slavery only happened because the Northern States overthrew the governments of the Southern States, though. The South was challenged because the North could see that Southern slave states were intent on projecting their system extra-terratorially, through eg the Dredd Scott case and efforts to make slavery legal in the Louisiana purchase territories. Southern states will attempt to do the same on abortion by putting legal impediments on women travelling to pro abortion states for treatment or shipping in morning after pills from out of state. This will lead to an increasingly angry confrontation between the two sets of states, although obviously I would hope that it won't end in civil war. A constitutional amendment legalising abortion in all of the US would be the first best solution but is impossible to imagine given the way the population is distributed (ie sparsely populated states with an anti abortion majority would block it).
Respecting the rights of the unborn child is not the same as trying to maintain slavery and does not need a civil war to push abortion on demand on the minority of states that do not want it
The states that have already proposed abortion bans (eg Texas) ban it in almost all circumstances, not just "on demand". These bans will result in women dying. And states have already started to discuss measures to prevent women travelling to other states for an abortion. Of course the debate is different from slavery and the abortion issue has two sides to it (FWIW I am not so much pro abortion as anti backstreet abortion, ie I am against banning it because it can't be banned, but you can ban safe and affordable abortion). But overturning Roe vs Wade clearly puts two sets of states on a collision course with each other on a fundamental and emotive issue. It will end in one side imposing its position everywhere, by force if necessary. I think the parallels with the years running up to the civil war are only too clear for anyone who has studied that period.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
It's not a ghost. It's probably someone opened a door or window elsewhere in the building.
I am the only person here. My house is a big u-shaped granite building with the house in the south wing and the first floor, with the old bank in the middle and north wing on the ground floor.
The doors in the bank make a distinctive noise. Nobody here to slam them yet now and then they slam. Have seen Jim with my own eyes crossing from one room into another about 15 feet ahead of me upstairs in the house.
I was the sceptic until I moved here. But I can't ignore my own senses. Have seen and heard Jim, heard the little Scottish girl, and seen the cat - 3 ghosts that we know of. All of whom have their own personalities. Can't ignore the objects placed and dropped and moved and the doors opening and closing by themselves.
Its not scary. But it is real.
It is absolutely real in that your mind created those things. But a ghost it is not.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
A democratic process subject to the veto of 40 senators.
And the 20 smallest states represent 10% of the population (so their senators represent 5-6% of national votes) but between them they have a veto.
As reflects the US is a Federal nation built on states' rights
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
Since it’s your manor, any skinny on the mysterious murder of the bank manager in Nairn in 2004? At the time various theories were punted from drug dealers to international financial skulduggery, but it appears now to be down to a planning dispute over decking at a local hotel. There’s something terrifically NE of Scotland about that..
Is that the one they made a TV series out of?
Dunno, missed it if they did. This the event and aftermath..
Yep that was it - bank manager opened the door, shot dead, no one knew why. Was a v boring series (as it at that time was inconclusive so no denouement).
Sounds like it might have got more boring, though I guess the events could make a drama based on the poisonousness of small town life.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
Yeah it's straightforward logical and consistent. It's the pro-life support for assault rifles and executions I find perplexing.
Not always, the Roman Catholic Church for example is anti death penalty as well as anti abortion
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
A democratic process subject to the veto of 40 senators.
And the 20 smallest states represent 10% of the population (so their senators represent 5-6% of national votes) but between them they have a veto.
As reflects the US is a Federal nation built on states' rights
It's a dangerous argument to make that the US was designed to work this way so that's OK. The original intention was not for the SC to have the power it has. The original intention was not for the Senate filibuster to mean a minority get a veto over everything. Vast amounts of the US system have evolved over time. You can't cherry pick and say this bit must be fine because that's how it was designed when every other part of the system has radically changed since 1776.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
Yeah it's straightforward logical and consistent. It's the pro-life support for assault rifles and executions I find perplexing.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
Yeah it's straightforward logical and consistent. It's the pro-life support for assault rifles and executions I find perplexing.
Not always, the Roman Catholic Church for example is anti death penalty as well as anti abortion
Indeed it is. Which is entirely logical and consistent.
BoZo should have hidden in a fridge again this morning
He is to address the Ukraine Parliament this morning, the first Western leader to do so, so not hiding in a fridge
I'm with you BigG.
Boris must go ..then again he is the greatest Wartime Prime Minister since Churchill, and he didn't really break any Covid rules, and the Gray report must be canned because it was written by a Labour shill, and Starmer broke loads of rules whilst Boris was ambushed by a cake. Phew!
Boris must go but he is recognised by Ukraine and their President for the support they have received in their fight against the war criminal that is Putin
Boris broke the covid rules and there is no dispute about that
Starmer may or may not have broken covid rules but they lied about Rayners's attendance and he looks uncomfortable when being asked questions by journalists. The media will no doubt only be satisfied when he agrees to a review and interview by Durham Police but as one voter said this morning, 'they are all the same' and that is a fairly widespread view
SKS didn't break the covid rules. And is being wrong about one person attending one of very many meetings receding into memory, in a busy day, a crime?
I think you ought to report yourself to the police for not ebing able to tell us instantly what size of spanner the lady on Mr Parrish's tractor movie was holding.
Starmer saying he didn't break the covid regulations is being challenged by Richard Holden, MP, the mail and others including 2 students who want the police to review the video they took
There is nothing unreasonable about questioning the veracity of those events
I don’t know why Labour continues with this line that it doesn’t matter and there is nothing to see here. If there was truly nothing, you think they would have a better argument. It’s clear from yours - who is not a Tory-at-any-cost voter - plus arguably the Best PM polling that the voters are sceptical of Labour’s stance. Blaming it on the machinations of the Daily Mail is a lazy argument.
Mudslinging. Dirty tricks. Negative campaigning.
It’s a fact in absence of any new significant evidence since last investigated, The Tories merely doing a throw spaghetti at the wall see what sticks. What significant new evidence has emerged that warrants a new or reopened investigation? The Tories and mail have brought nothing forward, they merely hoping the police could find some, but that is not how the process works, not how justice works.
The killer fact, unlike when the Tories partied during lockdown in Westminster, at this particular time of Starmer’s working meal, the rules were you could do a working meal in office. Unless Tories or friends in media, or anyone in public such as caterer who delivered a feast, comes forward with evidence it was different than the first investigation concluded, then it quite rightly remains closed. Simples.
With most workplaces, if you have alcohol during work time - especially during work time - it’s a sackable offence.
Anyway, take it you believe the “it was a honest mistake we forgot about Rayner” line. Given that, I’m sure you will be generous if BJ trots out the same line.
Here's your problem. The police have established this to be a legal campaign event. So Rayner being forgotten about is about as big as crime as me forgetting that I bought a sandwich last week.
TBH, I don’t really care who did what. A lot of people broke lockdown rules. And SKS having a beer is not a capital offence.
What he should do though is, if he criticising someone’s else’s behaviour, is be whiter than white. His attempts to explain it all don’t seem that great either. Same for his supporters as well. If you are going to demand BJ resigns and in the same breath say “it’s all overblown with Starmer” you’re backing your side not playing the facts.
In any event, what we think doesn’t matter, it’s what the wider public thanks and there seems a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that people are not really buying the excuses of SKS.
His attempts to explain it all don’t seem that great either. It being the legal campaign event. He doesn't have to explain legal things.
you’re backing your side They are not my side. I am a member of a different party.
not playing the facts. the facts that the event was a legal campaign event?
These students made a complaint and submitted their video as evidence. The police review the evidence, confirm the law at the time and say "no evidence of an offence". These are the facts. The rest is desperate political smear by the guilty.
As I keep saying, if you want a society where I can compel the police to keep investigating your legal activities by making baseless complaints without any evidence, then keep going the way you are.
I have seen pictures of SKS with a beer with apparently some party workers (no idea when, or what the rules were at that time).
But if the rules were the same as they were for cakegate then a reasonable person would think that if Boris was in the wrong so was SKS.
That is what the Tories are hoping. That its different rules at different times for completely different things doesn't matter - they hope.
We'll find out on Thursday. Appears they believe it will be brutal as they're now saying they will lose 400,000,000 councillors so that if its only 350 they will proclaim victory. Which works for a day or so until the Met drop the big stack of FPNs that have been waiting for the election then the Gray report.
Oh. Was it different rules? What were they when SKS was doing his thing?
I'm not going sifting through Twitter but they have been posted by others. At the time of this April 21 beer/curry scandal campaigning was allowed and explicitly mentioned. Much of the law had been rescinded and dropped to guidance only ("you should not") as opposed to the previous legal "you must not" as was operational for the various Downing Street parties.
"The regulations at the time" is what Durham Plod cited when they reviewed the video and decided no evidence of criminal activity.
Yeah I'm not going to go over it either but:
"campaigning" and "being in the Cabinet Room" = allowed "beer/curry" and "cake" = not allowed.
If they were the same rules at the time of each event then that is pretty straightforward.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
But not all rights are determined by a democratic process. In most developed countries including the USA, many rights are part of an overriding Constitution which protects people from transient changes in majority rule. The UK is the major exception. So it is not so simple as saying that everything should be democracy, when nobody at all in the USA thinks their Constitution should be abolished.
Pretty much agree. Balancing competing rights and duties is not a matter that constitutions are especially good at dealing with. None of this undermines my point.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
It's not a ghost. It's probably someone opened a door or window elsewhere in the building.
I am the only person here. My house is a big u-shaped granite building with the house in the south wing and the first floor, with the old bank in the middle and north wing on the ground floor.
The doors in the bank make a distinctive noise. Nobody here to slam them yet now and then they slam. Have seen Jim with my own eyes crossing from one room into another about 15 feet ahead of me upstairs in the house.
I was the sceptic until I moved here. But I can't ignore my own senses. Have seen and heard Jim, heard the little Scottish girl, and seen the cat - 3 ghosts that we know of. All of whom have their own personalities. Can't ignore the objects placed and dropped and moved and the doors opening and closing by themselves.
Its not scary. But it is real.
It is absolutely real in that your mind created those things. But a ghost it is not.
I used to think as you did, so I get it.
I've been waiting my whole life for a paranormal experience but no dice yet. As long as things are not ill intentioned and you are happy I'd say enjoy the company. Your guests seem happy enough with you there. Or maybe you are the guests?
Have you thought of renting out to one of the ghastly TV programmes?
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
A democratic process subject to the veto of 40 senators.
And the 20 smallest states represent 10% of the population (so their senators represent 5-6% of national votes) but between them they have a veto.
As reflects the US is a Federal nation built on states' rights
So shall we give Wales, Scotland and NI a veto over England? It is an untenable situation in a very divided country.
They already do on some domestic legislation as was seen clearly in the different Covid lockdown rules and restrictions imposed by the governments and legislatures of the 4 home nations. The UK is also a union not a Federation of states like the USA.
However the UK Parliament is supreme if it wishes to pass legislation to entrench its view on an issue. Much as in the US states can do as they wish only as long as it accords with what the US constitution and Supreme Court and US Federal law allows
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
It's not a ghost. It's probably someone opened a door or window elsewhere in the building.
I am the only person here. My house is a big u-shaped granite building with the house in the south wing and the first floor, with the old bank in the middle and north wing on the ground floor.
The doors in the bank make a distinctive noise. Nobody here to slam them yet now and then they slam. Have seen Jim with my own eyes crossing from one room into another about 15 feet ahead of me upstairs in the house.
I was the sceptic until I moved here. But I can't ignore my own senses. Have seen and heard Jim, heard the little Scottish girl, and seen the cat - 3 ghosts that we know of. All of whom have their own personalities. Can't ignore the objects placed and dropped and moved and the doors opening and closing by themselves.
Its not scary. But it is real.
I have to admit that I would be frightened to death!!
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
In a democracy in a Federal nation like the US built on states' rights the states are allowed to do anything they wish not prevented by the US constitution or Federal law.
The US constitution gives rights to free speech, to bear arms, abolition of slavery and against cruel and unusual punishment. It does not give an automatic right to healthcare nor does it give a right to abortion on demand despite what a more liberal SC decided in Roe v Wade.
Respect for a minority of mainly southern states' having the right to impose pro life legislation if they wish is not incompatible with the constituency and does not need to lead to another civil war
The constitutional ban on slavery only happened because the Northern States overthrew the governments of the Southern States, though. The South was challenged because the North could see that Southern slave states were intent on projecting their system extra-terratorially, through eg the Dredd Scott case and efforts to make slavery legal in the Louisiana purchase territories. Southern states will attempt to do the same on abortion by putting legal impediments on women travelling to pro abortion states for treatment or shipping in morning after pills from out of state. This will lead to an increasingly angry confrontation between the two sets of states, although obviously I would hope that it won't end in civil war. A constitutional amendment legalising abortion in all of the US would be the first best solution but is impossible to imagine given the way the population is distributed (ie sparsely populated states with an anti abortion majority would block it).
Respecting the rights of the unborn child is not the same as trying to maintain slavery and does not need a civil war to push abortion on demand on the minority of states that do not want it
The states that have already proposed abortion bans (eg Texas) ban it in almost all circumstances, not just "on demand". These bans will result in women dying. And states have already started to discuss measures to prevent women travelling to other states for an abortion. Of course the debate is different from slavery and the abortion issue has two sides to it (FWIW I am not so much pro abortion as anti backstreet abortion, ie I am against banning it because it can't be banned, but you can ban safe and affordable abortion). But overturning Roe vs Wade clearly puts two sets of states on a collision course with each other on a fundamental and emotive issue. It will end in one side imposing its position everywhere, by force if necessary. I think the parallels with the years running up to the civil war are only too clear for anyone who has studied that period.
As the polling shows several southern and border states do indeed want to go even further and ban abortion outright. I agree they are mostly also states of the old Confederacy and there are real tensions between those Trump heartland states and the rest of the USA as there were in 1860
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
It's not a ghost. It's probably someone opened a door or window elsewhere in the building.
I am the only person here. My house is a big u-shaped granite building with the house in the south wing and the first floor, with the old bank in the middle and north wing on the ground floor.
The doors in the bank make a distinctive noise. Nobody here to slam them yet now and then they slam. Have seen Jim with my own eyes crossing from one room into another about 15 feet ahead of me upstairs in the house.
I was the sceptic until I moved here. But I can't ignore my own senses. Have seen and heard Jim, heard the little Scottish girl, and seen the cat - 3 ghosts that we know of. All of whom have their own personalities. Can't ignore the objects placed and dropped and moved and the doors opening and closing by themselves.
Its not scary. But it is real.
It is absolutely real in that your mind created those things. But a ghost it is not.
I used to think as you did, so I get it.
Yep. Until you started seeing Jim. Not yet happened to me yet so very much looking forward to that moment.
Him and Thor and The Almighty. Oh and the Tooth Fairy he's always been on the list.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
And Ireland until recently. Countries move at their own pace towards gender equality. But here we have the so called 'leader of the free world' doing something altogether different - like Afghanistan they're going in the opposite direction. It's incredible. So incredible that I doubt it'll hold. There'll be a backlash which one way or another will prevail. Least I hope so.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
In a democracy in a Federal nation like the US built on states' rights the states are allowed to do anything they wish not prevented by the US constitution or Federal law.
The US constitution gives rights to free speech, to bear arms, abolition of slavery and against cruel and unusual punishment. It does not give an automatic right to healthcare nor does it give a right to abortion on demand despite what a more liberal SC decided in Roe v Wade.
Respect for a minority of mainly southern states' having the right to impose pro life legislation if they wish is not incompatible with the constituency and does not need to lead to another civil war
The constitutional ban on slavery only happened because the Northern States overthrew the governments of the Southern States, though. The South was challenged because the North could see that Southern slave states were intent on projecting their system extra-terratorially, through eg the Dredd Scott case and efforts to make slavery legal in the Louisiana purchase territories. Southern states will attempt to do the same on abortion by putting legal impediments on women travelling to pro abortion states for treatment or shipping in morning after pills from out of state. This will lead to an increasingly angry confrontation between the two sets of states, although obviously I would hope that it won't end in civil war. A constitutional amendment legalising abortion in all of the US would be the first best solution but is impossible to imagine given the way the population is distributed (ie sparsely populated states with an anti abortion majority would block it).
Respecting the rights of the unborn child is not the same as trying to maintain slavery and does not need a civil war to push abortion on demand on the minority of states that do not want it
The states that have already proposed abortion bans (eg Texas) ban it in almost all circumstances, not just "on demand". These bans will result in women dying. And states have already started to discuss measures to prevent women travelling to other states for an abortion. Of course the debate is different from slavery and the abortion issue has two sides to it (FWIW I am not so much pro abortion as anti backstreet abortion, ie I am against banning it because it can't be banned, but you can ban safe and affordable abortion). But overturning Roe vs Wade clearly puts two sets of states on a collision course with each other on a fundamental and emotive issue. It will end in one side imposing its position everywhere, by force if necessary. I think the parallels with the years running up to the civil war are only too clear for anyone who has studied that period.
As the polling shows several southern and border states do indeed want to go even further and ban abortion outright. I agree they are mostly also states of the old Confederacy and there are real tensions between those Trump heartland states and the rest of the USA as there were in 1860
Not sure you can be described as the "heartland" of a country when you are in active rebellion to leave it.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
It's not a ghost. It's probably someone opened a door or window elsewhere in the building.
I am the only person here. My house is a big u-shaped granite building with the house in the south wing and the first floor, with the old bank in the middle and north wing on the ground floor.
The doors in the bank make a distinctive noise. Nobody here to slam them yet now and then they slam. Have seen Jim with my own eyes crossing from one room into another about 15 feet ahead of me upstairs in the house.
I was the sceptic until I moved here. But I can't ignore my own senses. Have seen and heard Jim, heard the little Scottish girl, and seen the cat - 3 ghosts that we know of. All of whom have their own personalities. Can't ignore the objects placed and dropped and moved and the doors opening and closing by themselves.
Its not scary. But it is real.
I have to admit that I would be frightened to death!!
I believe that one's mind has to be susceptible to these things and that can happen for many reasons and many states of mind can contribute to this.
Some great podcasts on this, about poltergeists in particular. Very often a remote Scottish farmhouse/bothy for some unfathomable reason.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
A democratic process subject to the veto of 40 senators.
And the 20 smallest states represent 10% of the population (so their senators represent 5-6% of national votes) but between them they have a veto.
As reflects the US is a Federal nation built on states' rights
It's like 50 separate countries.
Except it is not. You are a citizen of the US, not of Texas or California.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Let us hope that this abortion debate doesn't start up here. We have enough division in this country already.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
Since it’s your manor, any skinny on the mysterious murder of the bank manager in Nairn in 2004? At the time various theories were punted from drug dealers to international financial skulduggery, but it appears now to be down to a planning dispute over decking at a local hotel. There’s something terrifically NE of Scotland about that..
Not just decking, a retrospective planning application for this excrescence on a pretty victorian hotel:
Being forced to pull down your new hotel extension could disturb the mind. Murder, though? Getting him out of the way would not have affected the outcome. A bizarre case.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
It's not a ghost. It's probably someone opened a door or window elsewhere in the building.
I am the only person here. My house is a big u-shaped granite building with the house in the south wing and the first floor, with the old bank in the middle and north wing on the ground floor.
The doors in the bank make a distinctive noise. Nobody here to slam them yet now and then they slam. Have seen Jim with my own eyes crossing from one room into another about 15 feet ahead of me upstairs in the house.
I was the sceptic until I moved here. But I can't ignore my own senses. Have seen and heard Jim, heard the little Scottish girl, and seen the cat - 3 ghosts that we know of. All of whom have their own personalities. Can't ignore the objects placed and dropped and moved and the doors opening and closing by themselves.
Its not scary. But it is real.
I have to admit that I would be frightened to death!!
I believe that one's mind has to be susceptible to these things and that can happen for many reasons and many states of mind can contribute to this.
Some great podcasts on this, about poltergeists in particular. Very often a remote Scottish farmhouse/bothy for some unfathomable reason.
I recall a classic incident involving my family. Two cars, travelling along the A36 at night, at Dead Maid's (a hill near Warminster). The lead car contained my Aussie aunt, who, on arrival home, reported seeing the ghost of a little old lady crossing the road. My car had three people who saw a barn owl (aka 'ghost' owl) flit across the road.
This is not to dismiss peoples reports, but I found it fascinating how she was so sure she had seen a ghost and we were so sure she had seen an owl.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
A democratic process subject to the veto of 40 senators.
And the 20 smallest states represent 10% of the population (so their senators represent 5-6% of national votes) but between them they have a veto.
As reflects the US is a Federal nation built on states' rights
It's like 50 separate countries.
Except it is not. You are a citizen of the US, not of Texas or California.
Anyone that thinks the differences between the US states are equivalent to the differences between countries either hasn't lived in the US or hasn't lived outside the US.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Let us hope that this abortion debate doesn't start up here. We have enough division in this country already.
I think even BJ would realise he'd be on very shaky ground there.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
Since it’s your manor, any skinny on the mysterious murder of the bank manager in Nairn in 2004? At the time various theories were punted from drug dealers to international financial skulduggery, but it appears now to be down to a planning dispute over decking at a local hotel. There’s something terrifically NE of Scotland about that..
Not just decking, a retrospective planning application for this excrescence on a pretty victorian hotel:
Being forced to pull down your new hotel extension could disturb the mind. Murder, though? Getting him out of the way would not have affected the outcome. A bizarre case.
Just plain weird:
At around 7 pm on 28 November 2004, the doorbell of the Wilsons' house was rung and Veronica answered the door. An unidentified man wearing a baseball cap, dark blue jacket and dark jeans stood on the doorstep.[6] He asked for Alistair Wilson by name and Wilson went to speak to him. A few minutes later he returned to his wife carrying an empty blue envelope with the name Paul on the front.[4] Confused, he went back to the door, at which point Veronica Wilson heard three gunshots and, on going to the door, discovered her husband had been shot.[7] He died in hospital later that evening.[4]
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
But not all rights are determined by a democratic process. In most developed countries including the USA, many rights are part of an overriding Constitution which protects people from transient changes in majority rule. The UK is the major exception. So it is not so simple as saying that everything should be democracy, when nobody at all in the USA thinks their Constitution should be abolished.
Pretty much agree. Balancing competing rights and duties is not a matter that constitutions are especially good at dealing with. None of this undermines my point.
Mm, I think it does challenge your point. You say the extremes want rights to be decided by non-majority rule processes, but actually almost everyone wants that. They do disagree on what the remit should include, like abortion and private gun ownership, but the overall legitimacy of the Constitution to specify the boundaries of law is very widely accepted, including quite intrusive and general amendments such as the Bill of Rights and due process, which is exactly the debate here: not should rights be decided solely by transient majorities, but whether the right is part of an overall right to privacy, etc.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
A democratic process subject to the veto of 40 senators.
And the 20 smallest states represent 10% of the population (so their senators represent 5-6% of national votes) but between them they have a veto.
Which is entirely reasonable in a federation.
And the odds of all 20 states being on the same side is infinitesimal.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/roe-decision-constitution-wasnt-written-for-women.html ...This is what Samuel Alito leaves out when he says “the Constitution makes no mention of abortion.” With regards to abortion, the most notable thing that’s missing from the Constitution is the perspective of anyone who might get one. When the right to an abortion was enshrined in America, it was in large part because of women like Ann Hill, who dared to imagine that the Constitution’s sweeping language about equality could apply to them too...
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Let us hope that this abortion debate doesn't start up here. We have enough division in this country already.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
A democratic process subject to the veto of 40 senators.
And the 20 smallest states represent 10% of the population (so their senators represent 5-6% of national votes) but between them they have a veto.
As reflects the US is a Federal nation built on states' rights
It's like 50 separate countries.
Except it is not. You are a citizen of the US, not of Texas or California.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
A democratic process subject to the veto of 40 senators.
And the 20 smallest states represent 10% of the population (so their senators represent 5-6% of national votes) but between them they have a veto.
As reflects the US is a Federal nation built on states' rights
It's like 50 separate countries.
Except it is not. You are a citizen of the US, not of Texas or California.
Anyone that thinks the differences between the US states are equivalent to the differences between countries either hasn't lived in the US or hasn't lived outside the US.
Nor indeed Canada. Where there are far more noticeable differences between Provinces.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
You can't see that stripping women of their right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy under any circumstances has anything to do with gender equality?
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Let us hope that this abortion debate doesn't start up here. We have enough division in this country already.
I think even BJ would realise he'd be on very shaky ground there.
Johnson is relatively pro choice. Hunt is actually more pro life and has said he wants to reduce the time limit to 12 weeks as in France and Italy for example.
If Rees Mogg becomes Tory leader then he opposes abortion outright in all circumstances so the Conservative Party would switch to a clear pro life position under his leadership
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
Yeah it's straightforward logical and consistent. It's the pro-life support for assault rifles and executions I find perplexing.
Opposition to abortion and support for the death penalty aren't automatically inconsistent - the latter, in theory, applies to people who have committed a grievous crime so, if they're never going to be released anyway, then (again, in theory) why not?
In reality, of course, the imperfectness of the justice system leads to a risk of executing someone who turns out to be innocent and this should outweigh pretty much all considerations.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
Cool. I'd ask him nicely not to slam doors! What did you see by the way? Fascinated by things like this.
Full figure of a small man. 5'5" maybe. Dark hair, white shirt, dark trousers. Has appeared in various mirrors and even at one point on a Zoom quiz behind Mrs RP.
Upstairs in the house a corridor runs the length of the building. 3 bedroom doors on the right, two small storerooms on the left. At the end is a cross corridor. Very short stub to the right into a bedroom, big store room door facing down the corridor, longer stub to the left into the bathroom.
I was at the top of the stairs heading down the corridor towards the open store room door when I saw my son come out of his room into the store room. Only saw the back of him, shouted "oi" wondering why he had gone in there (we'd had a power trip downstairs and I was heading to the fuse box which is in there. Can see the door the entire time. Nobody in there. And my son is still in his room playing Xbox. Already no longer in his school uniform so not in the white shirt and charcoal trousers I saw which I had assumed to be him.
We associate most of the poltergeist activity (like my big door slam) to Jim. The girl sounds to be maybe 5 (my daughter is 10). A giggle, and has also said "mummy" to Mrs RP and "daddy" to me. Like right behind us. When our daughter is out. And the cat is a dark cat shape that even house guests have seen. We do have a black cat. Who yowls at this other shape. Smaller tabby cat scratches and yowls at a closed wardrobe door like she does if the other one is trapped.
I do believe you have seen what you believe you saw. Quite what you have seen and why is up for debate. There is a ghost in Ludlow, a girl in 1960s clothing seen regularly at both in the Feathers Hotel and crossing the road. It was discovered who the girl was, she was traced and found to be still alive, someone who in the 1960s stayed in the Feathers and crossed the road on numerous occasions to visit her aunt who lived in the town. A living ghost!
I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
It’s a combination of groups:
- religious/faith based belief in the sanctity of life from conception (in theory this is mainstream catholic doctrine) - strict and limiting interpretation of the constitution and opposition to judicial activism (I have some sympathy with this - moral decisions by a society should be made by voters and their representatives not the courts) - Believes in states rights vs federal imposition - political mischief makers - Canny politicians who see a personal advantage in supporting this cause
Together they add up; individually they are all too small
Of these, I'd say the first is the only one upon which the strength of the anti-abortion movement stands. Without it, there would be no mischief-makers or cynical political bandwagonners. While there are certainly some who believe in 2 and 3 (and RBG was in the 2nd camp, so this is not just a Right/Left, fundamental Christian thing), these are very small beer compared to the faith-based opponents.
Much of conservatism is based around concepts of purity, and hence absolutionism. Abortion is an ideal issue on both counts for social and religious conservatives.
And here is a point I think you are missing - this is not really about the women or being anti-women from their perspective (I know, I'd have a hard time convincing my wife of that too), but about purity. Which is why such people can hold the seemingly contradictory position of being pro-life and pro-death sentence. It is not about life, but purity.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
Cool. I'd ask him nicely not to slam doors! What did you see by the way? Fascinated by things like this.
Full figure of a small man. 5'5" maybe. Dark hair, white shirt, dark trousers. Has appeared in various mirrors and even at one point on a Zoom quiz behind Mrs RP.
Upstairs in the house a corridor runs the length of the building. 3 bedroom doors on the right, two small storerooms on the left. At the end is a cross corridor. Very short stub to the right into a bedroom, big store room door facing down the corridor, longer stub to the left into the bathroom.
I was at the top of the stairs heading down the corridor towards the open store room door when I saw my son come out of his room into the store room. Only saw the back of him, shouted "oi" wondering why he had gone in there (we'd had a power trip downstairs and I was heading to the fuse box which is in there. Can see the door the entire time. Nobody in there. And my son is still in his room playing Xbox. Already no longer in his school uniform so not in the white shirt and charcoal trousers I saw which I had assumed to be him.
We associate most of the poltergeist activity (like my big door slam) to Jim. The girl sounds to be maybe 5 (my daughter is 10). A giggle, and has also said "mummy" to Mrs RP and "daddy" to me. Like right behind us. When our daughter is out. And the cat is a dark cat shape that even house guests have seen. We do have a black cat. Who yowls at this other shape. Smaller tabby cat scratches and yowls at a closed wardrobe door like she does if the other one is trapped.
I do believe you have seen what you believe you saw. Quite what you have seen and why is up for debate. There is a ghost in Ludlow, a girl in 1960s clothing both in the Feathers Hotel and crossing the road. It was discovered who the girl was, she was traced and found to be still alive, someone who in the 1960s stayed in the Feathers and crossed the road on numerous occasions to visit her aunt who lived in the town. A living ghost!
Seeing something and linking it to a historic person is the weak link in the chain. Frankly almost every historic country house has a grey lady, often named as X or Y etc. And some ghosts have multiple claimed locations. They must have a busy afterlife.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
A democratic process subject to the veto of 40 senators.
And the 20 smallest states represent 10% of the population (so their senators represent 5-6% of national votes) but between them they have a veto.
As reflects the US is a Federal nation built on states' rights
It's like 50 separate countries.
Except it is not. You are a citizen of the US, not of Texas or California.
There are bigger cultural differences now between California and Alabama than California and the UK or Canada or New Zealand for example
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Let us hope that this abortion debate doesn't start up here. We have enough division in this country already.
It's unlikely. But I could easily imagine a Tory government running a death penalty referendum to solidify the Brexit coalition. In fact I'd say it's likely.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
It's not a ghost. It's probably someone opened a door or window elsewhere in the building.
I am the only person here. My house is a big u-shaped granite building with the house in the south wing and the first floor, with the old bank in the middle and north wing on the ground floor.
The doors in the bank make a distinctive noise. Nobody here to slam them yet now and then they slam. Have seen Jim with my own eyes crossing from one room into another about 15 feet ahead of me upstairs in the house.
I was the sceptic until I moved here. But I can't ignore my own senses. Have seen and heard Jim, heard the little Scottish girl, and seen the cat - 3 ghosts that we know of. All of whom have their own personalities. Can't ignore the objects placed and dropped and moved and the doors opening and closing by themselves.
Its not scary. But it is real.
I have to admit that I would be frightened to death!!
I believe that one's mind has to be susceptible to these things and that can happen for many reasons and many states of mind can contribute to this.
Some great podcasts on this, about poltergeists in particular. Very often a remote Scottish farmhouse/bothy for some unfathomable reason.
I recall a classic incident involving my family. Two cars, travelling along the A36 at night, at Dead Maid's (a hill near Warminster). The lead car contained my Aussie aunt, who, on arrival home, reported seeing the ghost of a little old lady crossing the road. My car had three people who saw a barn owl (aka 'ghost' owl) flit across the road.
This is not to dismiss peoples reports, but I found it fascinating how she was so sure she had seen a ghost and we were so sure she had seen an owl.
I would like to think of myself as being rational, but there is a time I thought I saw a ghost.
I was staying at a B&B near Church Stretton. I awoke in the middle of the night to see something at the door. The thing moved around to my bed, passing in front of the wall-mounted TV. The red standby light on the TV blinked out as it passed, as if something had moved in front of it. It then leant down over me as I scrabbled for the bedside light, and I got an *impression* that it was not looking for me.
When I eventually turned the light on, nothing was there - but I was convinced that something had been in the room with me. There was also a dressing gown hanging off the door. The rational side of me says that I had been dreaming, and my imagination turned the gown on the door into the figure.
That seems reasonable and comforting. But I cannot imagine that I would have dreamt the standby light flickering off as it passed in front. That detail was just weird.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Let us hope that this abortion debate doesn't start up here. We have enough division in this country already.
It's unlikely. But I could easily imagine a Tory government running a death penalty referendum to solidify the Brexit coalition. In fact I'd say it's likely.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
It's not a ghost. It's probably someone opened a door or window elsewhere in the building.
I am the only person here. My house is a big u-shaped granite building with the house in the south wing and the first floor, with the old bank in the middle and north wing on the ground floor.
The doors in the bank make a distinctive noise. Nobody here to slam them yet now and then they slam. Have seen Jim with my own eyes crossing from one room into another about 15 feet ahead of me upstairs in the house.
I was the sceptic until I moved here. But I can't ignore my own senses. Have seen and heard Jim, heard the little Scottish girl, and seen the cat - 3 ghosts that we know of. All of whom have their own personalities. Can't ignore the objects placed and dropped and moved and the doors opening and closing by themselves.
Its not scary. But it is real.
I have to admit that I would be frightened to death!!
I believe that one's mind has to be susceptible to these things and that can happen for many reasons and many states of mind can contribute to this.
Some great podcasts on this, about poltergeists in particular. Very often a remote Scottish farmhouse/bothy for some unfathomable reason.
I recall a classic incident involving my family. Two cars, travelling along the A36 at night, at Dead Maid's (a hill near Warminster). The lead car contained my Aussie aunt, who, on arrival home, reported seeing the ghost of a little old lady crossing the road. My car had three people who saw a barn owl (aka 'ghost' owl) flit across the road.
This is not to dismiss peoples reports, but I found it fascinating how she was so sure she had seen a ghost and we were so sure she had seen an owl.
It is also very common for (especially tired) people to hallucinate. On one night/sleep deprivation exercise (funnily enough at Warminster...) I was trudging along a country track with a post and rails along the side of it and atop every post was as I saw it a small animal, looked a bit like a griffin or squirrel.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Let us hope that this abortion debate doesn't start up here. We have enough division in this country already.
It's unlikely. But I could easily imagine a Tory government running a death penalty referendum to solidify the Brexit coalition. In fact I'd say it's likely.
I think its about as likely as us discovering that Covid was manufactured in a lab . . . aboard Leon's alien spaceship.
Glad you're better Mike. But is it really true that who've had four injections really get covid any more mildly than those who have only had three or fewer? Perhaps the disease is just not very lethal anymore? It never really was for the under 60's anyway.
Omicron is inherently less severe to a given unvaccinated / naive immune system patient. But it’s higher infectiousness means it can quickly cause a massive clusterduck in a naive population. See China. The vaccine programme / prior infection in the West mean that covid isn’t something here people think about much. But in China it’s causing as big an impact on life as it ever did.
Exactly.
The main strains that have affected the UK appear to be, virulence-wise, and setting original covid to 100:
Original Covid:100 Alpha: 150 Delta: 200 Omicron: 67
(To be compared with seasonal influenza: ~5-10)
Vaccination reduces the level of those by about a factor of 10-20
Of course, the effect of widespread Omicron is worse than seasonal influenza because it's so infectious and so many people have caught it. If one in a thousand out of a million people die, that's worse than two in a thousand out of a hundred thousand people.
But the way that both the hospitalisation rates and the death rates against infection have marched downwards in lockstep with vaccination rollouts (first, second, third, and fourth doses each pushing it lower still) with slight shifts as the variants change does make it undeniable. It's the vaccines.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
I agree. It is the advantage those who are religious have over the likes of me. If life starts at conception it is clear cut. Otherwise it is a random date. Unfortunately I am not religious so I have that dilemma.
I've not heard a response from those who believe life starts at conception of birth control that prevents splitting cells embed in the womb which strikes me as abortion.
In general, "states' rights" ended after the Civil War when states were obliged to recognise rights existing under the U.S. Constitution. "States' rights" survived as a segregationist slogan for mid-century Democrats and later for Reagan who tempted Southern whites to roll back the clock 15 years.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
It's not a ghost. It's probably someone opened a door or window elsewhere in the building.
I am the only person here. My house is a big u-shaped granite building with the house in the south wing and the first floor, with the old bank in the middle and north wing on the ground floor.
The doors in the bank make a distinctive noise. Nobody here to slam them yet now and then they slam. Have seen Jim with my own eyes crossing from one room into another about 15 feet ahead of me upstairs in the house.
I was the sceptic until I moved here. But I can't ignore my own senses. Have seen and heard Jim, heard the little Scottish girl, and seen the cat - 3 ghosts that we know of. All of whom have their own personalities. Can't ignore the objects placed and dropped and moved and the doors opening and closing by themselves.
Its not scary. But it is real.
I have to admit that I would be frightened to death!!
I believe that one's mind has to be susceptible to these things and that can happen for many reasons and many states of mind can contribute to this.
Some great podcasts on this, about poltergeists in particular. Very often a remote Scottish farmhouse/bothy for some unfathomable reason.
I recall a classic incident involving my family. Two cars, travelling along the A36 at night, at Dead Maid's (a hill near Warminster). The lead car contained my Aussie aunt, who, on arrival home, reported seeing the ghost of a little old lady crossing the road. My car had three people who saw a barn owl (aka 'ghost' owl) flit across the road.
This is not to dismiss peoples reports, but I found it fascinating how she was so sure she had seen a ghost and we were so sure she had seen an owl.
It is also very common for (especially tired) people to hallucinate. On one night/sleep deprivation exercise (funnily enough at Warminster...) I was trudging along a country track with a post and rails along the side of it and atop every post was as I saw it a small animal, looked a bit like a griffin or squirrel.
Also once an idea is put in your head, its easier for your mind to make the connection and join the dots so that any creepy sound or event becomes "Jim" rather than "owl".
That's how successful magicians pull off a lot of their tricks, they put in your head what they want they want you to see or hear so that you're primed and ready, so if everyone in town is talking about a ghost then that ghost is going to be seen by a lot of people in town, in a self-fulfilling virtuous circle.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
I agree. It is the advantage those who are religious have over the likes of me. If life starts at conception it is clear cut. Otherwise it is a random date. Unfortunately I am not religious so I have that dilemma.
I've not heard a response from those who believe life starts at conception of birth control that prevents splitting cells embed in the womb which strikes me as abortion.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
That's one take. Another take is that the SC is stopping being activist and returning the US to a situation similar to the UK in which difficulty issues are dealt with by a democratic process and legislation. By 'federal level' you mean 'by a democratic process'.
It seems to me that neither extreme wants to accept that the democratic process has a legitimacy that the SC doesn't have, and that both sides only approve of the SC when it does what it wants.
The lack of open mindedness is staggering.
But not all rights are determined by a democratic process. In most developed countries including the USA, many rights are part of an overriding Constitution which protects people from transient changes in majority rule. The UK is the major exception. So it is not so simple as saying that everything should be democracy, when nobody at all in the USA thinks their Constitution should be abolished.
I take issue with the idea that written constitutions take rights issues out of the realm of democracy. They do not. Constitutions are created and ratified by democratic processes, are open to amendment through a democratic process. A deliberately difficult democratic process, admittedly, in order to protect those rights deemed fundamental from societal fads or the short-term political interests of certain groups.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
In a democracy in a Federal nation like the US built on states' rights the states are allowed to do anything they wish not prevented by the US constitution or Federal law.
The US constitution gives rights to free speech, to bear arms, abolition of slavery and against cruel and unusual punishment. It does not give an automatic right to healthcare nor does it give a right to abortion on demand despite what a more liberal SC decided in Roe v Wade.
Respect for a minority of mainly southern states' having the right to impose pro life legislation if they wish is not incompatible with the constituency and does not need to lead to another civil war
The constitutional ban on slavery only happened because the Northern States overthrew the governments of the Southern States, though. The South was challenged because the North could see that Southern slave states were intent on projecting their system extra-terratorially, through eg the Dredd Scott case and efforts to make slavery legal in the Louisiana purchase territories. Southern states will attempt to do the same on abortion by putting legal impediments on women travelling to pro abortion states for treatment or shipping in morning after pills from out of state. This will lead to an increasingly angry confrontation between the two sets of states, although obviously I would hope that it won't end in civil war. A constitutional amendment legalising abortion in all of the US would be the first best solution but is impossible to imagine given the way the population is distributed (ie sparsely populated states with an anti abortion majority would block it).
Respecting the rights of the unborn child is not the same as trying to maintain slavery and does not need a civil war to push abortion on demand on the minority of states that do not want it
There's an echo, though, in that "States Rights" was the banner under which parts of the South tried to hang onto Segregation.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
You can't see that stripping women of their right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy under any circumstances has anything to do with gender equality?
C'mon. Typo surely.
I do sometimes wonder what the outcome of this 'debate' would be if men remained silent and let women decide among themselves. Not all opponents of abortion are red-necked males. Some are women who identify as feminists and who regard abortion as a sexist assault on a woman's biological identity. Another form of oppression, in other words.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
Because you can only start from the premise that a foetus is an "independent life" by stripping women and only women of their own bodies.
If a woman's body is her own, no foetus can ever be an "independent life". So with that premise you're denying women their own body as their own, which of course is a tremendous problem if you supposedly believe in gender equality.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Let us hope that this abortion debate doesn't start up here. We have enough division in this country already.
It's unlikely. But I could easily imagine a Tory government running a death penalty referendum to solidify the Brexit coalition. In fact I'd say it's likely.
I think its about as likely as us discovering that Covid was manufactured in a lab . . . aboard Leon's alien spaceship.
I do have a question for US-based PBers. How much of the desire to chain women to the bed comes from some deranged religious conviction and how much because it upsets the liberals?
What I struggle to comprehend is how people vote for this. Vaginas are dangerous so we read in the UK and at least some Americans have them. Why would you vote to remove your own rights? To risk bleeding to death in agony (as @Cyclefree and Mrs RP have both said this morning). To subjugate your own gender - or at least your wives and daughters?
I do what I can to empower my daughter and to shape the world so that she can be all that she wants to be. The idea of raising her to be some man's property and saying "if you are raped it's God's will" is just crazy.
So do they do it because they genuinely believe in the non-rights of women? Or because they have been raised to hate liberals so hard that they will remove their own rights just to do them over?
It’s a combination of groups:
- religious/faith based belief in the sanctity of life from conception (in theory this is mainstream catholic doctrine) - strict and limiting interpretation of the constitution and opposition to judicial activism (I have some sympathy with this - moral decisions by a society should be made by voters and their representatives not the courts) - Believes in states rights vs federal imposition - political mischief makers - Canny politicians who see a personal advantage in supporting this cause
Together they add up; individually they are all too small
Of these, I'd say the first is the only one upon which the strength of the anti-abortion movement stands. Without it, there would be no mischief-makers or cynical political bandwagonners. While there are certainly some who believe in 2 and 3 (and RBG was in the 2nd camp, so this is not just a Right/Left, fundamental Christian thing), these are very small beer compared to the faith-based opponents.
Much of conservatism is based around concepts of purity, and hence absolutionism. Abortion is an ideal issue on both counts for social and religious conservatives.
And here is a point I think you are missing - this is not really about the women or being anti-women from their perspective (I know, I'd have a hard time convincing my wife of that too), but about purity. Which is why such people can hold the seemingly contradictory position of being pro-life and pro-death sentence. It is not about life, but purity.
And yet that desire for "purity" never extends to men and controlling their sexual desires and activities or punishing them for it. Odd that.
So I think being anti-women is a very significant part of it, even if it gets dressed up in a "purity" argument.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Let us hope that this abortion debate doesn't start up here. We have enough division in this country already.
It's unlikely. But I could easily imagine a Tory government running a death penalty referendum to solidify the Brexit coalition. In fact I'd say it's likely.
It would confirm the Brexit Sovereignty issues as a success. We hang and flog people we don't like because we can, and the ECJ can't stop us!
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
It's not a ghost. It's probably someone opened a door or window elsewhere in the building.
I am the only person here. My house is a big u-shaped granite building with the house in the south wing and the first floor, with the old bank in the middle and north wing on the ground floor.
The doors in the bank make a distinctive noise. Nobody here to slam them yet now and then they slam. Have seen Jim with my own eyes crossing from one room into another about 15 feet ahead of me upstairs in the house.
I was the sceptic until I moved here. But I can't ignore my own senses. Have seen and heard Jim, heard the little Scottish girl, and seen the cat - 3 ghosts that we know of. All of whom have their own personalities. Can't ignore the objects placed and dropped and moved and the doors opening and closing by themselves.
Its not scary. But it is real.
I have to admit that I would be frightened to death!!
I believe that one's mind has to be susceptible to these things and that can happen for many reasons and many states of mind can contribute to this.
Some great podcasts on this, about poltergeists in particular. Very often a remote Scottish farmhouse/bothy for some unfathomable reason.
I recall a classic incident involving my family. Two cars, travelling along the A36 at night, at Dead Maid's (a hill near Warminster). The lead car contained my Aussie aunt, who, on arrival home, reported seeing the ghost of a little old lady crossing the road. My car had three people who saw a barn owl (aka 'ghost' owl) flit across the road.
This is not to dismiss peoples reports, but I found it fascinating how she was so sure she had seen a ghost and we were so sure she had seen an owl.
It is also very common for (especially tired) people to hallucinate. On one night/sleep deprivation exercise (funnily enough at Warminster...) I was trudging along a country track with a post and rails along the side of it and atop every post was as I saw it a small animal, looked a bit like a griffin or squirrel.
Also once an idea is put in your head, its easier for your mind to make the connection and join the dots so that any creepy sound or event becomes "Jim" rather than "owl".
That's how successful magicians pull off a lot of their tricks, they put in your head what they want they want you to see or hear so that you're primed and ready, so if everyone in town is talking about a ghost then that ghost is going to be seen by a lot of people in town, in a self-fulfilling virtuous circle.
Absolutey. "The house is haunted" is already half the battle.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Let us hope that this abortion debate doesn't start up here. We have enough division in this country already.
I think even BJ would realise he'd be on very shaky ground there.
Johnson is relatively pro choice. Hunt is actually more pro life and has said he wants to reduce the time limit to 12 weeks as in France and Italy for example.
If Rees Mogg becomes Tory leader then he opposes abortion outright in all circumstances so the Conservative Party would switch to a clear pro life position under his leadership
With over 80% of the electorate supporting the right to abortion that seems even more unlikely than the etiolated Etonian becoming leader.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
Cool. I'd ask him nicely not to slam doors! What did you see by the way? Fascinated by things like this.
Full figure of a small man. 5'5" maybe. Dark hair, white shirt, dark trousers. Has appeared in various mirrors and even at one point on a Zoom quiz behind Mrs RP.
Upstairs in the house a corridor runs the length of the building. 3 bedroom doors on the right, two small storerooms on the left. At the end is a cross corridor. Very short stub to the right into a bedroom, big store room door facing down the corridor, longer stub to the left into the bathroom.
I was at the top of the stairs heading down the corridor towards the open store room door when I saw my son come out of his room into the store room. Only saw the back of him, shouted "oi" wondering why he had gone in there (we'd had a power trip downstairs and I was heading to the fuse box which is in there. Can see the door the entire time. Nobody in there. And my son is still in his room playing Xbox. Already no longer in his school uniform so not in the white shirt and charcoal trousers I saw which I had assumed to be him.
We associate most of the poltergeist activity (like my big door slam) to Jim. The girl sounds to be maybe 5 (my daughter is 10). A giggle, and has also said "mummy" to Mrs RP and "daddy" to me. Like right behind us. When our daughter is out. And the cat is a dark cat shape that even house guests have seen. We do have a black cat. Who yowls at this other shape. Smaller tabby cat scratches and yowls at a closed wardrobe door like she does if the other one is trapped.
I do believe you have seen what you believe you saw. Quite what you have seen and why is up for debate. There is a ghost in Ludlow, a girl in 1960s clothing seen regularly at both in the Feathers Hotel and crossing the road. It was discovered who the girl was, she was traced and found to be still alive, someone who in the 1960s stayed in the Feathers and crossed the road on numerous occasions to visit her aunt who lived in the town. A living ghost!
Would be delighted to be drunk enough to see / hear things and yet not be unconscious
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
I agree. It is the advantage those who are religious have over the likes of me. If life starts at conception it is clear cut. Otherwise it is a random date. Unfortunately I am not religious so I have that dilemma.
I've not heard a response from those who believe life starts at conception of birth control that prevents splitting cells embed in the womb which strikes me as abortion.
They're mostly anti birth control too.
Many will be I guess. I witnessed Melanie Phillips (anti abortion, pro contraception), turned into a gibbering wreck over the contradiction. I noticed some time later she had conveniently forgotten the contradiction.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
You can't see that stripping women of their right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy under any circumstances has anything to do with gender equality?
C'mon. Typo surely.
Of course it's got nothing to do with 'gender equality'. Whatever could that possibly mean in the context of pregnancy? It's about the right to life of the foetus, which, given the premise, clearly overrides any inconvenience or distress to the woman, exactly as it would in the case of murder of an infant or a disabled person.
To be clear, I'm not stating my view, just pointing out that the conclusion which inevitably follows from the premise. And it's not an unreasonable premise in itself - after all, everyone agrees that the foetus has a inviolable right to life at some date, the argument is simply about when.
In general, "states' rights" ended after the Civil War when states were obliged to recognise rights existing under the U.S. Constitution. "States' rights" survived as a segregationist slogan for mid-century Democrats and later for Reagan who tempted Southern whites to roll back the clock 15 years.
LOL. Try telling that to the Governors and state congressional members. Sure, civil rights have been taken out of the states' jurisdiction, but that still leaves a lot of states' rights.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Let us hope that this abortion debate doesn't start up here. We have enough division in this country already.
I think even BJ would realise he'd be on very shaky ground there.
Johnson is relatively pro choice. Hunt is actually more pro life and has said he wants to reduce the time limit to 12 weeks as in France and Italy for example.
If Rees Mogg becomes Tory leader then he opposes abortion outright in all circumstances so the Conservative Party would switch to a clear pro life position under his leadership
No it would not.
You may change your views whenever the current leader changes in order to keep in lockstep with the leader, but the rest of the Party does not.
The Conservative Party is a big tent party that has for an extremely long time reasonably viewed abortion as a conscience matter, not a whipped one. Not even JRM would change that and if he did he'd lose millions of voters and even he's not that foolish.
Another interesting vox pop getting the views of Russians on an important subject. What do they think of Zelensky? As ever with such videos there seems a clear generational divide.
A very interesting vox pop. Not exciting but it fills in a piece of the jigsaw. Do they see it as a Palestinian thing? Someone has stolen Russia's land and they want it back? Do they see it like Brexit? Europe had come together and one part decided to separate? Thousands of loose ends need to be sorted out and both sides need to co-operate? Is it like Northern Ireland? If the separatists didn't accept the border they would never accept an independence vote of just the six counties......There's lots on what Russia on here did but little on why they did it
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
You can't see that stripping women of their right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy under any circumstances has anything to do with gender equality?
C'mon. Typo surely.
Of course it's got nothing to do with 'gender equality'. Whatever could that possibly mean in the context of pregnancy? It's about the right to life of the foetus, which, given the premise, clearly overrides any inconvenience or distress to the woman, exactly as it would in the case of murder of an infant or a disabled person.
To be clear, I'm not stating my view, just pointing out that the conclusion which inevitably follows from the premise. And it's not an unreasonable premise in itself - after all, everyone agrees that the foetus has a inviolable right to life at some date, the argument is simply about when.
Whatever could it mean in the context of a pregnancy? It means that women are their own independent person, just as men are, so any "foetus" by definition is not. It is not an independent person until it is born, it may be viable, but until it is born and can breath on its own it is not an independent person, but the woman is.
It is an utterly unreasonable premise in itself. A foetus never has an inviolable right to life, only a person does and the person becomes a person at the moment of birth.
The SCOTUS decision will inflame US politics at a time when it’s already deeply polarized .
The choice is clear in November and this will impact many of the close races . Governors and state legislatures will be very much more at the forefront and it’s likely you’ll see a lot of up ballot effect .
Make no mistake behind the scenes the Dems will know this is a gift from the court which could help them save the senate.
Yup, that and letting Trump back on Twitter.
Still, it remains to be seen if the court will actually do this. If they're religious ideologues they will, but if they're political hacks they won't: What a political hack would do would be to leak that they were going to overturn, then do something that doesn't actually technically overturn but lets states almost completely ban abortion in practice. After the leak this will appear moderate and not really do much for Dem turnout.
That's what I expect to happen. Some of the intended legislation in deep Red States, if Roe is overturned, is pretty grim, and would surely impact upon the Republicans' chances.
Not in deep Red states as most voters there are anti abortion, though it might drive up Democrat turnout in blue and purple states which are more pro choice
But they were voting Republican anyway. It will motivate Democrats and Independents and maybe some Republicans who think 'For the grace of God that could be me'.
Not sure about that and I think it’s lazy to make that assumption.
Sure, it will motivate white, middle class educated liberals to vote and get out their Handmaiden Tale’s outfits. But the Democrats have them anyway and they are concentrated in already heavily Blue areas.
However, there is a fair chunk of the Democrat base - particularly Black but also a good chunk of the Hispanic vote - which is socially conservative but votes Democrat.
Turn this into a supercharger electoral issue and you might find a good chunk of those voters decide to exit the Democrat base.
Then there is @SeaShantyIrish2’s point. People in the States are used to flying large distances for regular routine visits to see family etc given air travel is so connected. It actually takes nearly twice as long to get from Belfast to Liverpool by ferry than from Mobile Alabama to Boston MA. So saying people having to travel to get abortions is not going to be seen as necessarily an unreasonable point @BartholomewRoberts thinks to many people.
In any event, I think what happens is that you get springing up a whole organisational network (and funding the cost) helping women who want abortions from banned states to those where it is not.
About two thirds of American voters don't want Roe vs Wade overturned, according to the polls. So if there are Democratic voters who are anti-abortion, there must be even more Republicans who are pro-abortion. I suspect this move will backfire on the Republicans, who will have to go on the airwaves to defend this policy every time a thirteen year old gets raped by her uncle then dies in childbirth. Abortion will still happen anyway, just like it always did; the rich will find a friendly doctor willing to do it for the right price, while the poor will find some pills on the Internet or risk sepsis with a coat hanger. All brought to you by Donald Trump, a man who probably kept half on NYC's abortionists in business during the 1980s.
Even if Roe v Wade was repealed it would NOT end abortion in most US States, for starters as most do not have the Republican governor AND Republican controlled state legislatures needed to pass abortion bans.
However currently states like Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee and Utah cannot impose abortion restrictions despite the fact most voters there want them and they have Republican governors and Republican state legislatures due to the Supreme Court mandate of US wide legal abortion via Roe v Wade
As always it's a question of democracy vs liberty. If Alabama passed a law saying that people called Peter were not allowed access to life saving medical procedures would that be okay? And if not why is it okay for those laws to be passed with respect to pregnant women? What about when pro life states block pregnant women from travelling to pro choice states in case they have a termination? This Scotus ruling will prove to be the Dredd Scott of the abortion debate, a reactionary over-reach by activist judges that forces the issue to be resolved at a federal level. If it takes a civil war to settle it I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
A few nations in Europe like Poland already still ban abortion
Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Which is interpreted relatively flexibly and demonstrably not the same as the most extreme position in some states of the USA.
Let us hope that this abortion debate doesn't start up here. We have enough division in this country already.
It's unlikely. But I could easily imagine a Tory government running a death penalty referendum to solidify the Brexit coalition. In fact I'd say it's likely.
I think its about as likely as us discovering that Covid was manufactured in a lab . . . aboard Leon's alien spaceship.
Looks like we'll soon have a number of US states where women will have the right to carry an assault rifle but not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
It's a complete mystery to me that anyone finds it hard to understand. If you start from the premise that the foetus is an independent life in its own right, as many people do in the US and elsewhere, then it follows as night follows day that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. You might not agree with the premise, but I really can't see what's difficult to understand about it, or indeed what it has to do with 'gender equality'.
Yes. This is actually one of the situations where I find the opposing view easy to understand, as the premise is clear.
I support a woman's right to choose and to have control of their body, but I regard abortion as a necessary failsafe, rather than a good in itself.
The morality on the anti-abortion side has the appeal of simplicity, but on the pro-choice side it's more complicated. Not many people celebrate abortions.
Another interesting vox pop getting the views of Russians on an important subject. What do they think of Zelensky? As ever with such videos there seems a clear generational divide.
A very interesting vox pop. Not exciting but it fills in a piece of the jigsaw. Do they see it as a Palestinian thing? Someone has stolen Russia's land and they want it back? Do they see it like Brexit? Europe had come together and one part decided to separate? Thousands of loose ends need to be sorted out and both sides need to co-operate? Is it like Northern Ireland? If the separatists didn't accept the border they would never accept an independence vote of just the six counties......There's lots on what Russia on here did but little on why they did it
I think it's probably a little risky to try to draw analogies with situations in parts of the world we may be more familiar with. Sometimes analogies help, but I don't really think there is a direct one here.
Entirely off-topic but I have just jumped out of my chair at a massive bang as a door is slammed somewhere outside my office. Go out and have a look and yes the store room door is shut. Was open earlier when I went in. No windows or doors open and nobody else in the building...
This was the last post Dale ever posted…
Aliens! Suggested Leon.
Its my ghost called Jim Shives. Died here at work in 1895 and appears not to have left. Have seen him. Heard him. He leaves us objects. Its fine - as long as he isn't slamming the sodding door shut.
Cool. I'd ask him nicely not to slam doors! What did you see by the way? Fascinated by things like this.
Full figure of a small man. 5'5" maybe. Dark hair, white shirt, dark trousers. Has appeared in various mirrors and even at one point on a Zoom quiz behind Mrs RP.
Upstairs in the house a corridor runs the length of the building. 3 bedroom doors on the right, two small storerooms on the left. At the end is a cross corridor. Very short stub to the right into a bedroom, big store room door facing down the corridor, longer stub to the left into the bathroom.
I was at the top of the stairs heading down the corridor towards the open store room door when I saw my son come out of his room into the store room. Only saw the back of him, shouted "oi" wondering why he had gone in there (we'd had a power trip downstairs and I was heading to the fuse box which is in there. Can see the door the entire time. Nobody in there. And my son is still in his room playing Xbox. Already no longer in his school uniform so not in the white shirt and charcoal trousers I saw which I had assumed to be him.
We associate most of the poltergeist activity (like my big door slam) to Jim. The girl sounds to be maybe 5 (my daughter is 10). A giggle, and has also said "mummy" to Mrs RP and "daddy" to me. Like right behind us. When our daughter is out. And the cat is a dark cat shape that even house guests have seen. We do have a black cat. Who yowls at this other shape. Smaller tabby cat scratches and yowls at a closed wardrobe door like she does if the other one is trapped.
I do believe you have seen what you believe you saw. Quite what you have seen and why is up for debate. There is a ghost in Ludlow, a girl in 1960s clothing seen regularly at both in the Feathers Hotel and crossing the road. It was discovered who the girl was, she was traced and found to be still alive, someone who in the 1960s stayed in the Feathers and crossed the road on numerous occasions to visit her aunt who lived in the town. A living ghost!
Interesting. In the early seventies there was an excellent BBC drama, written by Nigel Kneale, called The Stone Tape. Central to that was the premise that ghosts were somehow recordings of people from the past who somehow become recoded into their surroundings.
Comments
The doors in the bank make a distinctive noise. Nobody here to slam them yet now and then they slam. Have seen Jim with my own eyes crossing from one room into another about 15 feet ahead of me upstairs in the house.
I was the sceptic until I moved here. But I can't ignore my own senses. Have seen and heard Jim, heard the little Scottish girl, and seen the cat - 3 ghosts that we know of. All of whom have their own personalities. Can't ignore the objects placed and dropped and moved and the doors opening and closing by themselves.
Its not scary. But it is real.
We'll find out on Thursday. Appears they believe it will be brutal as they're now saying they will lose 400,000,000 councillors so that if its only 350 they will proclaim victory. Which works for a day or so until the Met drop the big stack of FPNs that have been waiting for the election then the Gray report.
Can't quite get my head around it tbh. Women forced to carry a baby they don't want for 9 months and then give birth to it. This is a fundamental downgrading of the status of women. A massive step backwards on gender equality. Terrible both conceptually and in its likely practical impact.
She took great delight in propping up a Labour minority for a while.
It has completely changed the political mentality of a village which used to vote Tory by rote.
It is awful that we're getting to a situation where we must have such a discussion!
Labour and Starmer in particular seem rather naive and incredulous as to what Lynton Crosby's stormtroopers have planned for them and are clueless as to how to defend themselves. Johnson and Crosby fight dirty!
The penalty for using reporting day data is to be locked in a small room with Piers Corbyn, Piers Moron and the lawyer with his baseball bat in his wife’s kimono. The only entertainment is reading Conservative Home.
You have been warned.
Barker: There now follows a sketch featuring ghosties and ghoulies.
Corbett: In which I get caught by the ghosties...
Barker: And I get caught by surprise
Upstairs in the house a corridor runs the length of the building. 3 bedroom doors on the right, two small storerooms on the left. At the end is a cross corridor. Very short stub to the right into a bedroom, big store room door facing down the corridor, longer stub to the left into the bathroom.
I was at the top of the stairs heading down the corridor towards the open store room door when I saw my son come out of his room into the store room. Only saw the back of him, shouted "oi" wondering why he had gone in there (we'd had a power trip downstairs and I was heading to the fuse box which is in there. Can see the door the entire time. Nobody in there. And my son is still in his room playing Xbox. Already no longer in his school uniform so not in the white shirt and charcoal trousers I saw which I had assumed to be him.
We associate most of the poltergeist activity (like my big door slam) to Jim. The girl sounds to be maybe 5 (my daughter is 10). A giggle, and has also said "mummy" to Mrs RP and "daddy" to me. Like right behind us. When our daughter is out. And the cat is a dark cat shape that even house guests have seen. We do have a black cat. Who yowls at this other shape. Smaller tabby cat scratches and yowls at a closed wardrobe door like she does if the other one is trapped.
Meanwhile, the Republicans broke any sense of fair play over SC appointments to produce an overly partisan SC.
It's the pro-life support for assault rifles and executions I find perplexing.
"The regulations at the time" is what Durham Plod cited when they reviewed the video and decided no evidence of criminal activity.
If a month old foetus is an independent life, why does it require the mother ?
Of course the debate is different from slavery and the abortion issue has two sides to it (FWIW I am not so much pro abortion as anti backstreet abortion, ie I am against banning it because it can't be banned, but you can ban safe and affordable abortion). But overturning Roe vs Wade clearly puts two sets of states on a collision course with each other on a fundamental and emotive issue. It will end in one side imposing its position everywhere, by force if necessary. I think the parallels with the years running up to the civil war are only too clear for anyone who has studied that period.
Which is entirely logical and consistent.
"campaigning" and "being in the Cabinet Room" = allowed
"beer/curry" and "cake" = not allowed.
If they were the same rules at the time of each event then that is pretty straightforward.
Have you thought of renting out to one of the ghastly TV programmes?
However the UK Parliament is supreme if it wishes to pass legislation to entrench its view on an issue. Much as in the US states can do as they wish only as long as it accords with what the US constitution and Supreme Court and US Federal law allows
Him and Thor and The Almighty. Oh and the Tooth Fairy he's always been on the list.
@SadiqKhan
London stands with women across the United States today.
Roe v Wade enshrined women’s fundamental rights over their own bodies and access to healthcare.
That cannot and must not be undone.
https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/1521400268310695938
Some great podcasts on this, about poltergeists in particular. Very often a remote Scottish farmhouse/bothy for some unfathomable reason.
You are a citizen of the US, not of Texas or California.
Being forced to pull down your new hotel extension could disturb the mind. Murder, though? Getting him out of the way would not have affected the outcome. A bizarre case.
My car had three people who saw a barn owl (aka 'ghost' owl) flit across the road.
This is not to dismiss peoples reports, but I found it fascinating how she was so sure she had seen a ghost and we were so sure she had seen an owl.
At around 7 pm on 28 November 2004, the doorbell of the Wilsons' house was rung and Veronica answered the door. An unidentified man wearing a baseball cap, dark blue jacket and dark jeans stood on the doorstep.[6] He asked for Alistair Wilson by name and Wilson went to speak to him. A few minutes later he returned to his wife carrying an empty blue envelope with the name Paul on the front.[4] Confused, he went back to the door, at which point Veronica Wilson heard three gunshots and, on going to the door, discovered her husband had been shot.[7] He died in hospital later that evening.[4]
And the odds of all 20 states being on the same side is infinitesimal.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/roe-decision-constitution-wasnt-written-for-women.html
...This is what Samuel Alito leaves out when he says “the Constitution makes no mention of abortion.” With regards to abortion, the most notable thing that’s missing from the Constitution is the perspective of anyone who might get one. When the right to an abortion was enshrined in America, it was in large part because of women like Ann Hill, who dared to imagine that the Constitution’s sweeping language about equality could apply to them too...
Where there are far more noticeable differences between Provinces.
C'mon. Typo surely.
If Rees Mogg becomes Tory leader then he opposes abortion outright in all circumstances so the Conservative Party would switch to a clear pro life position under his leadership
In reality, of course, the imperfectness of the justice system leads to a risk of executing someone who turns out to be innocent and this should outweigh pretty much all considerations.
Much of conservatism is based around concepts of purity, and hence absolutionism. Abortion is an ideal issue on both counts for social and religious conservatives.
And here is a point I think you are missing - this is not really about the women or being anti-women from their perspective (I know, I'd have a hard time convincing my wife of that too), but about purity. Which is why such people can hold the seemingly contradictory position of being pro-life and pro-death sentence. It is not about life, but purity.
I was staying at a B&B near Church Stretton. I awoke in the middle of the night to see something at the door. The thing moved around to my bed, passing in front of the wall-mounted TV. The red standby light on the TV blinked out as it passed, as if something had moved in front of it. It then leant down over me as I scrabbled for the bedside light, and I got an *impression* that it was not looking for me.
When I eventually turned the light on, nothing was there - but I was convinced that something had been in the room with me. There was also a dressing gown hanging off the door. The rational side of me says that I had been dreaming, and my imagination turned the gown on the door into the figure.
That seems reasonable and comforting. But I cannot imagine that I would have dreamt the standby light flickering off as it passed in front. That detail was just weird.
The main strains that have affected the UK appear to be, virulence-wise, and setting original covid to 100:
Original Covid:100
Alpha: 150
Delta: 200
Omicron: 67
(To be compared with seasonal influenza: ~5-10)
Vaccination reduces the level of those by about a factor of 10-20
Of course, the effect of widespread Omicron is worse than seasonal influenza because it's so infectious and so many people have caught it. If one in a thousand out of a million people die, that's worse than two in a thousand out of a hundred thousand people.
But the way that both the hospitalisation rates and the death rates against infection have marched downwards in lockstep with vaccination rollouts (first, second, third, and fourth doses each pushing it lower still) with slight shifts as the variants change does make it undeniable. It's the vaccines.
I've not heard a response from those who believe life starts at conception of birth control that prevents splitting cells embed in the womb which strikes me as abortion.
That's how successful magicians pull off a lot of their tricks, they put in your head what they want they want you to see or hear so that you're primed and ready, so if everyone in town is talking about a ghost then that ghost is going to be seen by a lot of people in town, in a self-fulfilling virtuous circle.
If a woman's body is her own, no foetus can ever be an "independent life". So with that premise you're denying women their own body as their own, which of course is a tremendous problem if you supposedly believe in gender equality.
So I think being anti-women is a very significant part of it, even if it gets dressed up in a "purity" argument.
To be clear, I'm not stating my view, just pointing out that the conclusion which inevitably follows from the premise. And it's not an unreasonable premise in itself - after all, everyone agrees that the foetus has a inviolable right to life at some date, the argument is simply about when.
You may change your views whenever the current leader changes in order to keep in lockstep with the leader, but the rest of the Party does not.
The Conservative Party is a big tent party that has for an extremely long time reasonably viewed abortion as a conscience matter, not a whipped one. Not even JRM would change that and if he did he'd lose millions of voters and even he's not that foolish.
It is an utterly unreasonable premise in itself. A foetus never has an inviolable right to life, only a person does and the person becomes a person at the moment of birth.
I support a woman's right to choose and to have control of their body, but I regard abortion as a necessary failsafe, rather than a good in itself.
The morality on the anti-abortion side has the appeal of simplicity, but on the pro-choice side it's more complicated. Not many people celebrate abortions.