Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I imagine many people in the U.S. feel the same way right now. Looking at the conservative right and just thinking "what the actual f*ck :eek:". Ya can't reason with zealots.

Even from the other side of the Atlantic I look at right wing religious conservatism in the US and think WTAF. The fact they're funding the pro-life effort over here is also a cause of concern.

As for SF, I'm not convinced that hard-line nationalism and socialism make for such a good mix

Odhinn

smacl wrote: »

Even from the other side of the Atlantic I look at right wing religious conservatism in the US and think WTAF. The fact they're funding the pro-life effort over here is also a cause of concern.

As for SF, I'm not convinced that hard-line nationalism and socialism make for such a good mix

It's hardline nationalist with regards british activity in Ireland certainly. However the party - quite rightly - empathise with others involved in liberation struggle regardless of race or creed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkFAeruvv4s

Bannasidhe

Odhinn wrote: »

It's hardline nationalist with regards british activity in Ireland certainly. However the party - quite rightly - empathise with others involved in liberation struggle regardless of race or creed.

I would tend to agree that SF are not what I would consider "hard-line" nationalist as that has connotations to the xenophobic hard right fleg waving fraternity.

I think they are of a left-wing, self-determination, school of nationalism that the likes of Connolly would understand very well. It's the nationalism that believes people do best when they have self-determination - in Connolly's time the 'enemy' was the imperialist superstate that tried to mould other people into becoming whatever was the 'origin' peoples - so essentially in an Irish (Indian, Scottish, Welsh, South African etc etc) context English was best so everyone had to be as Anglo as possible as to be otherwise was inferior.

Things are a bit more nuanced now due to our society becoming more ethnically diverse - plus outward looking - and the definition of 'Irish' is broadening. It is the Right that has issues with that broadening, not the Left.
SF can accept the 'New' Irish easily (meaning ethnicity is not their sole definition of 'Irish'), but cannot accept that Irish people are best ruled by English people sitting in Westminster. They are not a million miles from the SNP politically- the difference is Scotland did not not follow the revolution route, did not have a war of independence/civil war, did not have 'British' troops on it's streets enforcing the status quo and so didn't have the 'nationalist' push back either. They skipped the paramilitary phase.
The sticky bit for SF is this whole Irish = Catholic trope.
The Catholic bit and the Socialist bit are not very compatible.

Odhinn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would tend to agree that SF are not what I would consider "hard-line" nationalist as that has connotations to the xenophobic hard right fleg waving fraternity.

I think they are of a left-wing, self-determination, school of nationalism that the likes of Connolly would understand very well. It's the nationalism that believes people do best when they have self-determination - in Connolly's time the 'enemy' was the imperialist superstate that tried to mould other people into becoming whatever was the 'origin' peoples - so essentially in an Irish (Indian, Scottish, Welsh, South African etc etc) context English was best so everyone had to be as Anglo as possible as to be otherwise was inferior.

Things are a bit more nuanced now due to our society becoming more ethnically diverse - plus outward looking - and the definition of 'Irish' is broadening. It is the Right that has issues with that broadening, not the Left.
SF can accept the 'New' Irish easily (meaning ethnicity is not their sole definition of 'Irish'), but cannot accept that Irish people are best ruled by English people sitting in Westminster. They are not a million miles from the SNP politically- the difference is Scotland did not not follow the revolution route, did not have a war of independence/civil war, did not have 'British' troops on it's streets enforcing the status quo and so didn't have the 'nationalist' push back either. They skipped the paramilitary phase.
The sticky bit for SF is this whole Irish = Catholic trope.
The Catholic bit and the Socialist bit are not very compatible.

Given the partys "small c" approach to catholciism (eg its support of gay marriage), I'd say they are - at best - al la carte catholics in the classic irish tradition.

Bannasidhe

Odhinn wrote: »

Given the partys "small c" approach to catholciism (eg its support of gay marriage), I'd say they are - at best - al la carte catholics in the classic irish tradition.

Absolutely.
But it's still a dichotomy.

In the Republic, Irish people were a la carte in the classic Irish tradition when statues were spinning in various locations, people voted in the 8th, against divorce. It was just a different version of a la carte.
Currently we have RTE News Now interrupted every morning for a live stream of Mass.
The (incorrect) assumption in the South still is if you are white Irish you are a Catholic. People are just less surprised when corrected then they were even 10 years ago. However, people in the South tend to be uncomfortable when someone identifies as a Nationalist - for many this means bombs and Up the Raaaaah, while lately it's becoming Gemmaroids and racist loonies.


Sightly different in NI where the terms Catholic/Nationalist are pretty much interchangeable. We all know not all nationalists are Catholic and not all Catholics are nationalist but it's a powerful trope that doesn't apply in the republic.
But there the term Nationalist has in addition to the legacy of bombs (which tbh people in the South tend to have a much harder time letting go of...) also expresses the desire for self-determination.

In one jurisdiction political self-determination exists (squandered though it may have been by the continual election of muppets) and being Catholic isn't a minority thing with political undertones, it's considered the norm.
In the other your base is defined by religion mixed with politics where you are looking to literally destroy and rebuild the State you live in in order to gain self-determination - and your literal next door neighbours may be (sometimes violently) opposed to that idea.

SF need to bridge these two things.

And I think that's enough off topic

Abortion anyone?

lazygal

I wasn't going to have one but if you're offering like......

robindch

Odhinn wrote: »

However the party - quite rightly - empathise with others involved in liberation struggle regardless of race or creed.

Sinn Fein has maintained almost complete radio silence regarding Russia's invasions of Ukraine and Georgia, and Russia's support for the frozen conflict in the strange banana republic of Transnistria.

One could certainly speculate about why the party chooses not to criticize Russia and why its supporters frequently appears to use the Russian social media playbook.

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

I wasn't going to have one but if you're offering like......

Yerra, sure tis in the Constitution now so it's mandatory you're entitled.

lazygal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yerra, sure tis in the Constitution now so it's mandatory you're entitled.

Sure go on so.

Odhinn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Abortion anyone?

Do you have gift vouchers for the abortioning ?

aloyisious

Odhinn wrote: »

Do you have gift vouchers for the abortioning ?

Cue editorial in the Irish Catholic & opinion-piece in the Irish….

nozzferrahhtoo

Not just vouchers, but throwing in a free impregnation as part of the package no doubt.

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not just vouchers, but throwing in a free impregnation as part of the package no doubt.

That bit's available only to those with the correct insurance.

Hotblack Desiato

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not just vouchers, but throwing in a free impregnation as part of the package no doubt.

In a Dr Strangelove type scenario, I'm prepared to do my bit for my country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZct-itCwPE

aloyisious

The PA is running this report that the N.I Secretary of state Brandon Lewis exceeded his powers by allowing abortion in N.I. The legal opinion is that of N.I,s A.G John Larkin QC based on the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The E.C.H.R.&.F.F was created by the Council of Europe after WW2, it's not an EU body and not the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] that the UK Govt has an ongoing row with for some years now.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-secretary-exceeded-powers-in-allowing-abortion-39157743.html

Hotblack Desiato

Westminster is sovereign over NI according to UK law, and it legislated for abortion in NI. Case closed.

The Tele is the voice of conservative unionism which is undoubtedly pissed off at the moment for this among many other reasons. O'Loan is a religious fundie from the other direction.

Public opinion in repeated polls in NI has been in favour of abortion legalisation for a long time now.

The usual opponents of democracy rear their ugly heads.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Westminster is sovereign over NI according to UK law, and it legislated for abortion in NI. Case closed.

The Tele is the voice of conservative unionism which is undoubtedly pissed off at the moment for this among many other reasons. O'Loan is a religious fundie from the other direction.

Public opinion in repeated polls in NI has been in favour of abortion legalisation for a long time now.

The usual opponents of democracy rear their ugly heads.

Death rattle from the throat of a dying whatever?

Mark Hamill

There is a documentary coming out this Friday on Norma McCorvey, called AKA Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey being the woman at the centre of the Roe Vs Wade court case in the states).

While she was the woman in the original case looking for the abortion, in the 90s she did an about turn and joined the "pro-life" movement (something which has been held up in this thread by "pro-life"posters).

Apparently this documentary has footage of her just before her death in 2016 admitting that she changed sides because she was paid to do so.

But it was all a lie, McCorvey says in a documentary filmed in the months before her death in 2017, claiming she only did it because she was paid by antiabortion groups including Operation Rescue.

“I was the big fish. I think it was a mutual thing. I took their money and they’d put me out in front of the cameras and tell me what to say. That’s what I’d say,” she says in “AKA Jane Roe,” which premieres Friday on FX. “It was all an act. I did it well too. I am a good actress.”

In what she describes as a “deathbed confession,” a visibly ailing McCorvey restates her support for reproductive rights in colorful terms: “If a young woman wants to have an abortion, that’s no skin off my ass. That’s why they call it choice.”

Cabaal

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is a documentary coming out this Friday on Norma McCorvey, called AKA Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey being the woman at the centre of the Roe Vs Wade court case in the states).

While she was the woman in the original case looking for the abortion, in the 90s she did an about turn and joined the "pro-life" movement (something which has been held up in this thread by "pro-life"posters).

Apparently this documentary has footage of her just before her death in 2016 admitting that she changed sides because she was paid too do so.

I think pro lifers will likely ignore this and continue to use her to further their little zealot view.

Hotblack Desiato

A cool half a mil in 1990s dollars? Where do I sign up :P

The Lord's work sure don't come cheap!

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

I think pro lifers will likely ignore this and continue to use her to further their little zealot view.

LifeSiteNews has already dismissed it.

Igotadose

Looks like the USSC struck down yet another anti-abortion law in the US. The WH isn't pleased. Way to go, Justice Roberts. Surprisingly liberal on occasion, though usually just pro-Corporation:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-law/

ohnonotgmail

Igotadose wrote: »

Looks like the USSC struck down yet another anti-abortion law in the US. The WH isn't pleased. Way to go, Justice Roberts. Surprisingly liberal on occasion, though usually just pro-Corporation:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-law/

don't pat Roberts on the back too much. he struck it down because the SC struck down something similar a few years ago. On that occasion he voted the other way.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

don't pat Roberts on the back too much. he struck it down because the SC struck down something similar a few years ago. On that occasion he voted the other way.

Nevertheless, because he lost the argument that time around, he now regards the question as settled. He makes that quite clear this time; the decision he voted for here is not to his personal taste, but as far as he is concerned it is the settled law of the land and as a judge he must support it.

Pro-lifers will be very, very disappointed at this. Roberts has set his face against overturning the Supreme Court overturning its own prior rulings on this question, and overturning the existing rulings is precisely what pro-lifers hoped or expected that Roberts (as part of a Conservative majority) would do.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nevertheless, because he lost the argument that time around, he now regards the question as settled. He makes that quite clear this time; the decision he voted for here is not to his personal taste, but as far as he is concerned it is the settled law of the land and as a judge he must support it.

Pro-lifers will be very, very disappointed at this. Roberts has set his face against overturning the Supreme Court overturning its own prior rulings on this question, and overturning the existing rulings is precisely what pro-lifers hoped or expected that Roberts (as part of a Conservative majority) would do.

Don't you just hate when a judge sets aside their personal opinion and rules on what they reckon they law actually says.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nevertheless, because he lost the argument that time around, he now regards the question as settled. He makes that quite clear this time; the decision he voted for here is not to his personal taste, but as far as he is concerned it is the settled law of the land and as a judge he must support it.

Pro-lifers will be very, very disappointed at this. Roberts has set his face against overturning the Supreme Court overturning its own prior rulings on this question, and overturning the existing rulings is precisely what pro-lifers hoped or expected that Roberts (as part of a Conservative majority) would do.

that is the minimum expected of a supreme court judge

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is the minimum expected of a supreme court judge

It's not so simple.

The Supreme Court does have the power to reverse its own previous decisions, and occasionally does. Most famously, in 1954 it ruled in Brown -v- Board of Education that the provision of "separate but equal" public facilities for black and white citizens does not satisfy the constitutional requirement to afford all citizens the equal protection of the laws, overturning a previous decision (Plessy -v- Ferguson) which held that it did. This decision was a major landmark in the progress of civil rights in the US, and was much criticised by conservatives at the time as improper, changing the law in a way that should have been left to the legislature.

Conservatives since then have reckoned that, if the Supreme Court can reverse itself to develop the law in a progressive way, it can also reverse itself to develop the law in a conservative way, and a large part of the reason for welcoming conservative or (in Trump's case) pseudo-conservative presidents who will appoint conservative justices is the hope that, when there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, the court might reverse existing progressive decisions like, among others, Roe -v- Wade.

And it's not an unfounded hope because, as already noted, the Court can and does reverse itself. So I don't think it's correct to say that maintaining existing decisions is "the minimum expected of a supreme court judge". A Supreme Court justice has to decide when existing decisions should be maintained and when, exceptionally, they should be reversed. And this decisions shows that Roberts is not as willing to reverse existing decisions (that he thinks are poor decisions) as some expected or hoped he would be.

Igotadose

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not so simple.

The Supreme Court does have the power to reverse its own previous decisions, and occasionally does. Most famously, in 1954 it ruled in Brown -v- Board of Education that the provision of "separate but equal" public facilities for black and white citizens does not satisfy the constitutional requirement to afford all citizens the equal protection of the laws, overturning a previous decision (Plessy -v- Ferguson) which held that it did. This decision was a major landmark in the progress of civil rights in the US, and was much criticised by conservatives at the time as improper, changing the law in a way that should have been left to the legislature.

Conservatives since then have reckoned that, if the Supreme Court can reverse itself to develop the law in a progressive way, it can also reverse itself to develop the law in a conservative way, and a large part of the reason for welcoming conservative or (in Trump's case) pseudo-conservative presidents who will appoint conservative justices is the hope that, when there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, the court might reverse existing progressive decisions like, among others, Roe -v- Wade.

And it's not an unfounded hope because, as already noted, the Court can and does reverse itself. So I don't think it's correct to say that maintaining existing decisions is "the minimum expected of a supreme court judge". A Supreme Court justice has to decide when existing decisions should be maintained and when, exceptionally, they should be reversed. And this decisions shows that Roberts is not as willing to reverse existing decisions (that he thinks are poor decisions) as some expected or hoped he would be.

Further, rest assured the anti-abortion side will try again and again and again, wasting taxpayer dollars like crazy to come up with legislation that might meet the USSC's bar. Short of a Constitutional amendment enshrining a woman's right to health care, including abortion, nothing will stop them. This is how their leaders earn their money and it's a very easy gig.

robindch

Igotadose wrote: »

Further, rest assured the anti-abortion side will try again and again and again,

Well, they'll try again and again - yes.

But one does have to wonder about the degree of commitment to the cause. Republicans have been gaining votes from christians for 40 years with the "we'll reverse Roe vs Wade" line and they will lose their raison-d'etre if they ever actually achieve it.

drunkmonkey

Shockingly high number of abortions 6,666 last year. Any stats on demographics/income etc.