“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion.“
Interracial marriage could be added to that list of prohibitions. The specter of banning birth control even for married couples could spark a political backlash in the next months. After all, an abortifacient is murder, marriage or no marriage, according to the right wing. True, inflation is top of mind in the electorate. Or was.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Are you that afraid of your fellow Virginians that you think any of that would pass the legislature?
It’s amazing when Democrats so fear democracy.
Keep in mind that none of those issues involves the taking of a life. They are not the same as abortion, they are all matters between consenting adults who are harming no one.
Now is not the time to have temper tantrums or build straw men to terrorize voters. It is the time for us to do what should have been done 49 years ago, seek consensus between reasonable people.
LikeLike
You are a “fellow Virginian.” I do not want people like you writing our laws.
We do not fear democracy. We fear that we do not have democracy and that a minority of fanatics can control the legislature through voter suppression and Gerrymandering. We think that a woman right to choose is a fundamental right that should not be subject to the religious opinions of other people.
We had a “consensus between reasonable people.” We still have that consensus but the law no longer reflects it. It was called Roe v Wade the essential element of which was the viability test.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, you’re going to hold your breath till you turn blue instead of seeking consensus.
LikeLike
Consensus? With fanatics? It is not possible. The decades long and now successful campaign of violence and dirty tricks to overturn Roe proves that. Your attitude towards effective gun control proves it. The new threats by Clarence Thomas prove it.
No, what I am going to do is double down on the need for real democratic reforms in this country. The “silent majority” have had enough of being dominated by a fanatical minority fed by special interests on almost every issue. For starters…
Obama and now Biden have tried to accommodate you people without hurting your delicate feelings. Enough is enough. “Conservatives,” be careful what you wish for.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s amazing how you cannot see that the majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in the first trimester, and later with some restrictions. Even 60% of moderate Republicans agree abortion should be legal is either all or some cases.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
However, the red states are currently eliminating abortion, including medically induced or morning after pills.
Thomas laid open the true future goals regarding birth control, marriage and gays, and that, like it or not, will be on the campaign trail big time.
A better gift to the Democrats would be hard to visualize.
“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. The majority gender has just be scorned.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You presume that a majority oof women want abortion on demand right up to birth.
In a handful of blue cities, you might be right, but they are blue anyway.
In a handful of rural areas, bans on all abortions, including morning after pills, might be supported, but they are red anyway.
Most women are more reasonable. and conditions have changed greatly since Roe was decided.
Consensus is there to be found by reasonable people, but it will be fought by partisan hacks who want the issue and not the solution.
LikeLike
Americans approve of abortion in the first
trimester. After that, restrictions may apply. You are playing the right wing extremist view.
The late term abortions are mostly for medical complications, which will now be banned also.
Don’t worry, when mothers start dying or babies born without organs, you might think differently.
Or not.
The bottom line, however, is that Republican moderates are not happy. And we need to remind them from now until whenever why they are not.
The Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest cores of anti-abortion fervor, have already lost credibility with their “protection” of the born by diddling children and approving it. As an aside, of course.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“You presume that a majority oof women want abortion on demand right up to birth.”
Why would you accuse Len of that? It makes no sense nor did he say that.
THe right to autonomy with one’s own body is the point; NOT on-demand abortion up to to birth.
LikeLike
The issues of body autonomy and the right to life are inseparable.
The closest analogy I can think of is that of a stowaway on a ship.
It’s your ship, the stowaway has no right to be there, but still, you can’t just throw him overboard, you must wait until you reach a safe port to eject him.
In the case of pregnancy, the stowaway is blameless in being there.
LikeLike
Your stowaway analogy, as stated the last three times you used it, is BUPKES. THe stowaway CHOSE to be there. The mother does NOT always choose to get pregnant.
And the right to life of the MOTHER is now jeopardized. Damn the mother, save the child…ANd then let the child be gunned down in his/her school.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The stowaway is the child, not the mother, and it did not choose to be there. The mother, in 99%+ of cases had a part in that choice.
LikeLike
The stowaway DID choose to be there. WTH are you talking about?
LikeLike
The child chose to be conceived?
how?
LikeLike
You are the one who said the stowaway and the child are the similarity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the child is an involuntary stowaway.
LikeLike
…” involuntary stowaway.”
Then Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are real as well. Not to mention unicorns.
LikeLike
“You presume that a majority oof women want abortion on demand right up to birth.”
You think of yourself as sensible, honest, and fair minded, but you tell us that Len presumes “that a majority of women want abortion on demand right up to birth.” That is some ignorant and dishonest bullshit. There is no reason to presume any such thing about women or about Len. Plus, Roe v Wade did not support abortion on demand beyond viability and you know that but there you go, pretending that it does. Again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The issues of body autonomy and the right to life are inseparable.”
That is a dodge. The question was… Why did you tell us that Len presumes “that a majority oof women want abortion on demand right up to birth?”
I can tell you why you would say that even though you know that it is not true of Len or of a majority of women. It is the kind of dishonesty that has been the hallmark of the so-called “pro life” side of the discussion since the beginning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We do not fear democracy. We fear the threats to democracy that so many on the right are proponents of.
“they are all matters between consenting adults who are harming no one.”…
And the health care decisions are a matter between a woman and her doctor. That human life is not a life when some arbitrary, religious decision is the basis for the law.
…”reasonable people.”
The number of reasonable people appears to be dwindling rapidly behind the banner of religious freedom, denigrating the rights of individuals and states, and by three Justices who lied to those who voted to confirm them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Now is not the time to have temper tantrums or build straw men to terrorize voters.”
You mean those who favor legal abortion won’t be called baby killers anymore? Or clinics burned and bombed. Or doctors threatened and shot to death. Or pregnant women assaulted for going to a clinic.
I’m talking about voters rejecting the Republican candidates at the ballot box, local, state and federal. And doing this to prevent what just happened.
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/06/25/truck-hits-protesters-iowa-vpx.cnn
LikeLike
Of course you want the issue for partisan purposes and seeking consensus would impair that.
You are turning into Paul
LikeLike
“…turning into Paul”
Thank you. His writings skills and research results are better than anyone else’s, including mine, in my opinion.
I am not turning this issue into a partisan one. I don’t have that power. Have you pulled a Rip Van Winkle the last decades?
Once the Evangelicals decided abortion was an issue years after Roe with the rise of the “Moral Majority”, their previous ambivalence changed. For partisan purposes.
Thomas has declared a partisan war with his attack on other matters pertaining to individual liberties.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The issue was already partisan. THe fact that you do not acknowledge that and accuse Len and Paul of not wanting to seek consensus is a dodge. It is those on the far right, and the loudest of those in particular, that do not want consensus. How many times has something beneficial to the country or state been blocked because of what party say in the Executive’s chair?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You are turning into Paul”
I will not speak for Len, but politics is how things are supposed to be changed in a democracy. Compromise and consensus are the ideal, but both sides have to be honest people with integrity. Those kind of people on the conservative side of politics have been cast out as RINOS. Obama naively believed in the existence of some goodwill in the GOP. So does Biden. They are dead wrong. Enough is enough.
If you think there is a partisan advantage to be had from this travesty of a ruling, you are acknowledging that it does NOT reflect what the people of this country believe should happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did not post a Nyah nyah we win deal with it post.
I posted that we now had the opportunity to get it right, through the legislative process, but what I get back is “We’re going to use this politically.” And not a single suggestion for finding common ground.
So, the rational conclusion is you really don’t care about women, or babies, all you can see is an opportunity to give your tribe more power.
You are guilty of all the bad faith you accuse your opponents of and more.
LikeLike
We have had many opportunities to “get it right”, but the anti-abortion movement has no option for consensus. If abortion is murder and life begins at fertilization, where do you suggest compromise is possible?
My personal compromise is viability so long as the fetal development is far enough along to have a good chance at survival with minimal lifelong pain and no dependency.
That is at best 23 weeks, but that is very optimistic.
Forget the adoption option. We already have about 400,000 children in foster care. If you are White and perfect, no problem. If you are a minority with Downs, forget it.
There is an obsession with a fertilized egg and then once born, you are on your own no matter what circumstances are. Mom could be 14 and raped, tough. What if Mom needs chemo or radiation while pregnant? What doctor will risk his life in marginal situations. Why subject a child with a known fetal abnormality that assures death in a few years? Why would you subject parents and a child to such torture?
These are cases that are heart wrenching. And they will receive no mercy, no compassion. Just a spit in the face by a anti-abortion extremist.
How many will suffer in the years it will take to change our laws in absence of Roe? We need a national law protecting women and Republicans want no part of that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No, up until now, there have been zero opportunities to get it right. Roe left no alternatives other than trying to sneak around the edges. Now we can actually negotiate a consensus.
Except for a very few states, there is not a majority for the fertilized egg threshold. Likewise there are few states where abortion until the baby can put up a fight is in the majority.
Most places it will be necessary to find a consensus. And that is as it should be.
We have 50 states which can find their own consensus and compare results to find the balance between protecting POSSIBLE personhood and the burden on the mother.
It will take time and argument, but that’s how a democratic republic works.
LikeLike
…”negotiate a consensus.”..
Your belief that a consensus can be found is bogged down by the reality that the entrenched MINORITY representation GOP legislatures won’t compromise. Never have never will. THat is why they gerrymandered themselves ito power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the legislature, at least in Virginia, neither extreme has the votes to impose their will. So a consensus is possible here.
LikeLike
Regarding adoption, people are adopting babies from Mali because they can’t get one here. Many states will not place Black babies with eager White parents.
LikeLike
You may be pretending to be naive so you can sit on your high horse but this is a highly political decision that was achieved by LIES and dirty tricks. It will only be fixed with political action. We had a consensus of reasonable people for 50 years. The fanatics have rejected it.
Your admonitions remind me of one Republican lawmaker’s advice on Facebook . . . “I tell my daughters, ‘Well, if rape is inevitable, you should just lie back and enjoy it.'”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Consensus was not possible while Roe was in effect. Do you understand what consensus is?
You can’t start with 90% and then say let’s negotiate the other 10%.
Even if true negotiations would have produced the same result, that did not happen. Now we start even.
LikeLike
“Consensus was not possible while Roe was in effect.”
That is total nonsense. Consensus is not possible. Period. Roe has nothing to do with it.
There is no middle ground between the idea that a fertilized egg is an unborn child and the idea that it is a blob of protoplasm that could become a child if the woman chooses to nurture it. Fanatics and religious zealots are the people who do not know what consensus is. Their moral purity and superiority do not allow it. Compromise is a dirty word for them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So a consensus is possible here.”
In spite of your accusations, you are the one that does not understand what the essence of a “consensus” is. FYI, it is a settlement of a dispute that everyone is willing to accept. And move on. There is no possibility that the fanatics who cheer for the murder of doctors. the burning of clinics, and the shaming of patients are going to accept anything except everything they want.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had posted a link the The Week’s reporting of Thomas’ opinion under the Roe thread.
Scalia’s opinion was clear that the decision was exclusive to Roe and we have been told repeatedly that the other decisions mentioned would not be affected by this one. Thomas’ OPINION included in the decision is a call to arms.
It seems that Thomas is telling those on the far right and the religious zealots that they should start lawsuits to challenge those rulings wherever they are. That the Court NOW has a sympathetic ear to overturn those rulings. I do wonder if Loving will end up being challenged. How interesting would it be if Thomas were to NOT recuse himself from that case. And then his Conservative brothers and sisters decide to overturn it.
What a week for SCOTUS. They knocked down the wall between church and state. Loosened STATES’ rights to impose restrictions on guns, IAW the term “well regulated”. And finally, and more devastatingly, told woman they are not free to make their own health care and reproductive choices.
I could hear the champagne corks at Heritage and The Federalists popping at my house all night long.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Scalia’s opinion”…
I meant Alito’s. Mea Culpa
LikeLike
I don’t think Thomas’ concurring opinion will affect much of anything. The Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade by invalidating privacy as a Constitutionally protected right. This will have consequences for other SCOTUS rulings that, post-Roe, relied on the right to privacy, but this would have been true whether Thomas mentioned it or not.
We are already seeing a lot of overreaction to Dobbs in the political sphere. I imagine that abortion frenzy will affect the midterm elections to the extent that frenzy is inherently a bad look.
I am hoping that rationality prevails. After all, there is no real need for a right to privacy in cases where no one suffers harm or injury.
LikeLike
…l”there is no real need for a right to privacy in cases where no one suffers harm or injury.”
Tell that to Justice Thomas and those who agree with him. Contraception, marriage equality and the like have been put on the table and Thomas’ concurring opinion will be the basis for the lawsuits challenging those rulings soon to come.
And it is not an overreaction when women know that their autonomy and rights have been taken away from them.
The old saying that if you don’t want an abortion, then don’t have one comes to my mind. But do not tell women what they can and can’t do for their own health.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “And it is not an overreaction when women know that their autonomy and rights have been taken away from them.”
It is an overreation to say that women’s autonomy and rights have been taken away from them. Dobbs only says that judicial review cannot use an imaginary right to privacy as the basis for a ruling.
If you’d like to make the case that women have an unalienable right to kill their unborn children, you must now do so without claiming that this right is implied in the right to privacy.
LikeLike
“It is an overreation to say that women’s autonomy and rights have been taken away from them. ”
Sorry, but when you grow a vagina, then you can say what a woman believes. Until then, I suggest you find women outside your bubble to discuss the ideas of body autonomy and personal choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…”an imaginary right to privacy as the basis for a ruling.”
So the 14th Amendment is now imaginary? Thank you for the clarification.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nonsense, Mr. Rothman.
LikeLike
Gee, now that you explained it , I can see your point of view and insight. Impressive 😇
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sometimes a reply like that is all that is necessary in replying to unnecessary hysteria. All this ruling said was there is no provision in the constitution protecting abortion as a right. There is no provision protecting gay marriage just like there isn’t one protecting hetero marriage either. Are you suggesting red states will just ban marriage because it isn’t in the constitution? Are you suggesting red states will ban everything not protected like food, clothes, houses, cars, pets…maybe liberals???
LikeLike
Hysteria or just concern that birth control, for example, is on the chopping block in many states? The most effective forms are abortifacients. Then add in the Thomas view that it must go also.
Interestingly enough, interracial marriage has the same “suspect” origins in a SCOTUS ruling. Thomas left that out of his call to review birth control, gay marriage and same sex relations.
My point in the post is that the Roe ruling may have awakened a sleeping giant.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Could, might, maybe….My point is people will see through the hysteri c al donkey in the room and saner minds will prevail.
LikeLike
Coming from an insane elephant, I. won’t hold my breath.
LikeLike
UNtil Loving, interracial marriage was banned. So your lack of concern for others being able to live the lives they desire, without interference or harm from the government or hateful bigots, is noted with the usual disgust.
LikeLiked by 1 person