THE LEAKED SUPREME COURT DECISION REGARDING ROE V WADE AND WHY IT MAY BE MORE DIRE THAN PEOPLE THINK

 

I've been meaning to write this post for about the past week and a half but have been germinating over what to say.  This may do little more than scratch the surface but it's something still need to think about right now.

Like the majority of Americans I was shocked when news broke of the Supreme Court opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that's most likely going to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that struck down state laws outlawing abortion.  If this is correct something that has been a constitutionally-protected right this country for 49 years will become illegal in much of the country, stripping those who can get pregnant the ability to make the decision of what to do with said pregnancy when it happens.

With this leak many Americans have found themselves angry and have taken to the streets in protest in actions ranging from simple protest rallies to at least one instance I know about of an intersection being blocked. All of this occurring while the corporate-owned mainstream media seems to have taken the right focusing on the leak rather than the content in the leak. 

By letting the news story be about the leak rather than about half the population of a constitutional right the corporate-owned mainstream media dilute some of the anger from the story.  It also runs the risk of what's really at stake at this does happen.

Those in the pro forced childbirth camp (most of them aren't actually "pro life" so we will not call them that) claim that by getting rid of Roe it will provide protection to what they consider "unborn babies." what it really will do is make access to abortion virtually a nonentity if you are not middle to upper middle-class or above. At the same time at this decision will be released this many states that would seek to Outlaw abortion (if they wouldn't already outlawed do to fucked up trigger laws that would automatically make abortion illegal once Roe is overturned) will place various laws to push through said bans and punish those that perform or seek them (we;ll touch upon that later in the post).  These states, in many cases, also don't have infrastructure in place to help the possible rise in expectant mothers who would be struggling financially with next to no relief and no options thanks to right wing ignorance and short-sightedness. And some of these states baby been cut unemployment benefits and would force people to take lower-paying jobs under the guise of "keeping the economy going."

In addition, there is no mandatory maternity or paternity leave in this country, and there seems to be a mockery of the idea of extending that very same right to people from many of those who desire to take away the right of a woman (as well as those trans men and non-binary people can get pregnant) from being able to control their own bodies and plan their own families if they so choose. 

Overturning Roe will also do is play a role in stripping back to rights men at least five or six decades.  People forget that it wasn't until the 1970s but a woman could have a bank account in her own name.  It was also around that time that people began to slowly realize it's wrong for a woman to be raped by her husband (yes, sickeningly enough, marital rape was legal until sometime within the last five decades). I give these two examples the show things have in fact come along way for women in those five decades but, if Roe goes away then those rights we take for granted could be on shaky ground as well.

On the more immediate front, stripping away the right to choose doesn't affect just abortion. Being forced to have a child before you're ready also potentially limits job prospects (having to take care of a kid is a time commitment that can't eat up time normally spent studying or working even when the child is wanted) as well as possibly forcing women into bad and/or abusive relationships because of the pregnancy (and the pressure to stick together for the kids).  While these everyday doors are bad enough late for those who can get pregnant whether they are women, trans men, or non binary people is even worse and more horrendous than pre Roe.

Several states have legislation in the pipe that would make it illegal women to go to a state where abortion is legal to take care of the procedure.  Never mind that legislation such as this in reality actually violates the right to travel that most Americans assume is automatic, legislation like this basically makes those who can get pregnant prisoners under a repressive form of house arrest and gives them less rights than residents of said states born with a penis. Some states are even planning state laws that would prosecute abortion providers in states where are the procedure would still be legal the face prison time or doing what is legal in the state they worked in if they perform an abortion on someone living in a state where it isn't legal.

In other words, states where abortion would be outlawed are planning to prosecute and imprison women buys they're not ready to have a kid and choose to have an abortion, possibly with homicide charges. This differs from before Roe v Wade in that back then fetal life wasn't the reason why was it illegal and prosecutions tended to be related to vice and morals issues more than anything else.  They also generally didn't target the women that sought out abortions but targeted doctors.  This time around,  though the legislation proposed against abortion rights in various states has a hatefulness to it that targets women as well as LGBTQ people and non binary people who can get pregnant. Their proponents almost seem to salivate at the chance to punish these people if they make a choice that goes against interpretation of a specific religion that seems to have grabbed one political party in this country rather than laws based in reality.

Who this would really target though are poor and lower middle class women, especially those that aren't white, who often don't have the resources or aren't able to get the time the travel hours out of their way to you have a medical procedure they should rightfully have access to. Laws like these also are hard to enforce on those who can get pregnant who are at least middle middle class or higher-income who have more resources and may be able to travel more easily and without questions to have the procedure done.

It should be clear at this point that while these laws might not mention race or class specifically. The people who would most likely be affected by this would be non-white women and poor people of all races. Some of these people will face more desperate situations pigeons well upper-class white women will be able to able to make the decision Bible where they can with minimal hassle (and you know damn well that this purses of corporate CEOs and right-wing politicians what happened abortions done no questions asked - all while the latter proposes and passes more restrictive laws to limit what those who can get pregnant do with their bodies).

Now some moderates and right-wingers may try to gaslight those being alarmed at this, claiming it's about protecting "the unborn" and wouldn't really affect other parts of life. The problem with this is shit like this always snowballs and has unintended consequences that takes rights form people other than those targeted). Even before this decision became public right-wingers are already proposing that the Supreme Court overturn Obergefell v Hodges, the 2013 SCOTUS decision that made same-sex marriages legal nationwide. Also, a number of right-wing politicians are already proposing going after the right to contraception (something, ironically enough, that lessens the number of abortions), either wanting them outlawed out right or making it illegal for single women to have birth control. Even if this is nothing more than culture-war talking points heading to the midterms the fact that some people in positions of power or even proposing this shows that this has nothing to do with protecting families or even protecting those who can get pregnant but is actually about control, power, and a desire to punish those who don't fit their narrow definition of what their interpretation of their religion says people should live and love.

As I mentioned earlier one heartening thing about all the sickening turn in the wars on both women and LGBTQ people who can get pregnant is that is has pissed off a lot of people and made them take out to the street in protest, from the typical marches to, in some instances, people blocking traffic to peaceful protests outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices, who are crying butt hurt over this supposed " invasion" of their privacy even as barriers were put up in front of the Supreme Court so people couldn't protest there. This anger and outrage (as well as the desire to fight against it) is unlikely to go away - nor should it. And I have a feeling once the ruling is made public that people will be in the streets voicing their outrage over SCOTUS and right-wing politicians taking rights away from over half the country's population.  This is going to get tense, and possibly ugly, but it will have to be done.

As I post this the US Senate is voting on The Women's Health Protection Act, which would codify Roe v Wade into federal law (something they should have done a long damn time ago). Like many I called my senators (though those doing so in blood red states may wonder if it does any damn good). The Democrats seem to be slightly recharged by this (we'll focus on that in another post) but if this vote fails they better be prepared to bring it up until they get it passed. It will take a while but establishment Dems need to fight their natural urge to cave to Coupublicans and actually work for the people instead of their wealthy donors to make this so.

The upcoming SCOTUS ruling on Roe isn't completely unexpected given the shenanigans Coupublicans have pulled they've had control of Congress.  However at this point in time it will not be the end of the story people will need to fight back against this and realize that things are going to get worse and very very ugly before they get better.

Yes, I’m aware that this post is a very brief detailing of what’s at stake here if Roe v Wade is overturned but it should be something to consider for those wondering what the fuss is about or those naïve enough to think that the right wing will stop with abortion and not touch other rights.  They want to push the country back decades and it’s up to the rest of us to do what we can to fight that tide and stop it.

A BRIEF EXPLANATION ON WHY I HAVE BEEN SCARCE ON THE BLOG OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS.

 Hey! Sorry for not being on here very much (or really almost at all) recently. Been meaning to get on here but the scheudling at the paying job had been crazy and that, combined with a number of other obligations, means I don't get to the blog as often as I'd like.  While I wish I could post more often life often gets in the way and I don't always get to be on here (even when I have ideas for posts as I'm working on the print issues). Then there's the issue of feeling burnt out and overwhelmed in the midst of it all, which I felt at the start of this year.  Please accept my apologies for not posting all that often and, while I hope to rectify that in the future, if I'm not able to post very often I hope this explains some of the situation why this doesn't get updated as much as I'd like.

Here's hoping I can get on here more often.  

SO THOSE POLITICIANS AND PUNDITS DOWNPLAYING THE COUP ATTEMPT TEXTED WHAT?

 

So the past week The House Select Committee on 1/6 come across some definite revelations regarding what happened back on January 6, 2021.

Documents released to the committee by former chief of staff to the Mad Fuhrer (Now Currently in Exile at) Mar-A-Lago Mark Meadows (who was supposed to cooperate and testify to the Committee but backed out last week) have found that while the coup attempt was going down in the Capital, several politicians were texting him asking him to tell the Mad Fuhrer (a/k/a: now former electoral vote winner Donny) to tell those who stormed the building to stop and go home.  In addition Fox News personalities Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Bryan Kilmeade texted Meadows asking him to get his boss to stop what went down. All of this while the Mad Fuhrer watched the violence on TV and refused to comment or take action to halt it for several hours. 

So why are these text messages important? Some people would say they don't mean much or that they didn't believe that add pure was in fact responsible for the capitol on January 6th. However, if that were the case I would they be texting Mark Meadows ask him to speak to his boss? When they just be asking the police for help? The answer to these questions lies in two the text messages themselves those Meadows by Fox News personalities.

For example the politicians who texted Meadows while this is going on we're asking for help because they were being ambushed. They were warning of violence at the Capitol building that was going down at the moment. Later on many of these Coupublican politicians but deny that there was violence on January 6th with some referring to it as a normal protest and one congressperson all in the mob that stormed the capital "a tourist group (never mind that no one in a tourist group as ever had attacking police officer for blue lives matter flags, stealIng fixtures and documents, are busting into a main number what chance to hang someone - in this instance co electoral vote winner Mikey - as part of their itinerary).

The texts to Meadows from two of the Fox News  personalities who contacted him that day are especially telling. Laura Ingraham's text urged Meadows that " the president needs to tell people to go home" and that he was " destroying his legacy." Kilmeade's text seconded what Ingraham said claiming that those involved in the insurrection were " destroying everything [now former el electoral vote winner Donny] had accomplished." it is telling because, even though publicly that night they would downplay the violence that happened at the Capital (with Ingram even suggesting it was possibly started by activist from Black Lives Matter or Antifa), they're private text to a chief of staff urged him to get his boss to say something to stop what was going down. In other words, they knew the shit was bad and had a pretty good idea who was the blame for riling everyone up tell a March to the Capital and then and decided to see search through the capital injury not only Capital police officers but even some of their own that got caught in the stampede.

Yes  a case could be made that their statements on the air left some gray area as to who is responsible. Still, if they really thought that b l m or antifa or the ones responsible for this do they think that they would have stopped because the Mad Fuhrer  told them to?

The truth is they knew, or had a pretty good idea, who was responsible for the tragedy that happened last year because their guy didn't get the election results he wanted. In fact, one particular text that we haven't mentioned yet pretty much goes straight to the point of this.

In a series of texts to Meadows the Mad Fuhrer (Now Currently In Exile at) Mar-A-Lago's oldest son Little Donny urged Meadows to tell his father that " he needs to make an Oval [Office]address" and that this had " too far and had gotten out of hand." he also told Meadows that his father needed to "condemn the shit ASAP."

Put aside the strangeness of Little Donny texting his father's Chief of Staff instead of calling his father outright, what is text is that that some of this may be planned but didn't expect results to be as violent as they ended up being. As a result this awkward questions that people need to be subpoenaed and made to testify about.

Was the storming of the capital planned? If so, who was responsible for planning the siege?  If the administration knew about it then how far up  did the knowledge of this go? Until we get some clear answers on this the coup attempt is going to be problem or if you know of any are held to account.

Like the Fox News commentators numbers in Congress who downplayed the coup attempt Little Donny has done his part to try and deflect from what the texts he sent Meadows actually said your suit texted Meadows on that January Wednesday afternoon Little Donny also ask some idea of where are the responsibilities lies for the events of that day as his father stirred shut up and had his fans march toward the Capital to try and overturn the election results claiming  he might join them (as I said earlier in this piece he didn't join them but watched it on TV instead). While they later downplayed what had happened that day all the people who texted Meadows contacted him try and get the match your to stop the storming of the Capital. The fact The Meadows is trying to claim executive privilege the reason not to testify  (even though he has his own coming out on his time at the White House) shows that really didn't do much to try and make boss do something to Halt the coup attempt that day.

If these were normal times the committee would be far more of a news item than it is now. However for too long scandals have been allowed to pop up and then disappear when the pundits of the corporate controlled mainstream media go on to something else in pursuit of ratings or to distract from some issue those who owned media Outlets stop focus on.

Regardless there needs to be accountability for what happened on January 6th. We need to know how far up the ladder the attempted coup planning went, if anyone from the previous dministration was involved, and what - if anything - did the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago know about this. Until these steps are taken The Coop applicants will continue to not take this seriously and think no one needs to be held accountable for it.

If we don't want another coup attempt to happen again in this country we need to make sure that someone is held accountable for this.

SOMETHING DEMOCRATS NEED TO LEARN AND TAKE TO HEART

 

It’s the end of 2021. We’re one year into the Biden-Harris administration and the 2022 midterm elections are about 11 months away (give or take a few days).  And the Democrats are in trouble.

Recent polls show the Democrats taking a plunge in support from the general public – or at least those willing to take part in a poll or survey.  Much of President Biden’s agenda has been held up at the moment not just by Coupublicans but by two Dems in the Senate (Joe Manchin [WV] and Kyrsten Sinema [AZ]) who’s refusal to support abolishing the filibuster much less anything that could raise taxes for wealthy donors or actually provide concrete support for those people who may need it the most has not only forced Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to scrap key parts of the Build Back Better agenda, but also hurts an already fragile Democratic party majority in both houses of Congress.  All of this has the mainstream media predicting the Coupublicans resuming control of at least one house of Congress in the midterms, despite said party refusing to accept the severity of the January 6, 2001 coup attempt or fully deal with very real problems this country still faces.

So what needs to be done?  Mainstream pundits in the corporate owned media claim the Dems are in trouble for adopting policies that are supposedly "too far left."  They claim this is losing the elusive suburban moderate, citing the recent loss to the Coupubs in the VA Governors Race. However, the far left of the party are the ones fighting hardest to try and get most of Biden's agenda passed. We';re also living in a time when many people are leaving jobs that a lot of them can't afford to quit due to a mix of COVID, not being paid enough, and increasingly untenable working conditions. Add to this a rise in workers strikes with some gaining the most amount of ground since before Reagan fired the air traffic controllers back in 1981.  

This is where the Dems need to put their energy and focus. Over the past few decades they've shifted focus from the working class to the upper middle class and the suburbs with mixed success (Bill Clinton's two terms as President is cited though the 1994 Repub counterrevolution was a fairly large slide backwards, for example). It also led them to try and emulate what the Coupublicans used to be, causing them to move even further to the right in the process.  As a result, those the Democrats could get as solid voters have gotten overlooked in hopes of gaining Coupub voters who tire of the culture war shtick. 

This tends to fail more than they succeed.  

So what should the Dems do?  They should embrace what's going on and focus on working class issues such as making the minimum wage a living wage, improving access to healthcare (including where it applies to reproductive justice issues), and the like.  This, along with making sure we focus on the truth about our history as something to reckon with and make this place better are a couple of things that the establishment democrats should do, not just as a strategy, but because it's the right thing to do.

Will the establishment democrats do this? I wish I could say yes. However, given that both parties in the U.S. listen to wealthy donors way more than actual people I have a fear they'll gladly throw themsleves on a grenade to keep that gravy train flowing while those they're supposed to help suffer.  It;s easy for those in power to accept repeatedly losing what they're supposed to get for their voters as long as they make money.

Times are hard now, both in realistic terms as well as politics. The Democrats are in trouble but it isn't terminal. Still, unless they move away from trying to be a slightly less hard right imitation of the Coupubs and become devoted to actually helping those they represent then even abolishing the filibuster (which they should've done months ago) might not help them when all is said and done.

WAITING FOR THE VERDICT - THOUGHTS ON THE DEREK CHAUVIN MURDER TRIAL

As I type this the jury for the Derek Chauvin murder trial in Minneapolis, MN has entered the first full day of deliberations before reaching a verdict.  While most of us have our thoughts on the former cop's guilt or innocence it now lies in the hands of 12 people. With that in mind a few thoughts are in order.

Let's start with the guilty or innocence issue. What we do know is that Chauvin's knee being of the neck of George Floyd for almost ten minutes is what led to the latter's death. While Chauvin's defense has claimed Floyd died of  complications of previous medical issues in conjunction with that (hypertension, drug dependency issues, etc) medical experts called by the prosecution stated in their testimonies that those deaths would appear different  during the autopsy than they did in Floyd's case (his autopsy ruled his death a homicide). When added to evidence that wasn't allowed in the trial (such as Chauvin's history of police misconduct complaints - over 15 in the course of his career) as well as testimony from bystanders that Chauvin's knee remained on Floyd's neck minutes after George Floyd was unconscious [a couple of reports have said the knee remained even after Floyd died) and it's clear that Chauvin's act was a large reason why George Floyd died that late Spring afternoon.l  

So was it murder? Hard to say. Chauvin is charged with 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, and manslaughter. Because of this we know that it wasn't premeditated. However, his actions would likely garner a guilty charge of murder if the defendant hadn't worked in law enforcement. This exact charge is up to the jury to decide so anything here may be speculation.  

As for the trial itself, the fact the prosecution went for the jugular in a trial involving a police officer is a change from normal. Due to the difficulties of a police officer's job [both real and perceived] it's hard for an officer to be charged if an incidence of misconduct ends up killing someone. In some cases DA's overcharge and then don't do the best job prosecuting the case in the trial. This is also made difficult by the face that a prosecutor often has to work with police on their cases for the state, which requires them to walk a tightrope. In this case though several police officers, including the MPLS chief of police, testified that Chauvin violated policies on use of force. In addition, the prosecution on this case predicted a lot of what the defense might do and countered a lot of it early on. The defense did what they could with what they had but, when their best expert witness is being sued on the grounds he reportedly helped police in Maryland cover up a death, there are some stumbling blocks that - unless they're hoping for a mistrial or jury nullification - might not work well for them.

So should Derek Chauvin be convicted?  Personally I say he should, even if only of manslaughter. While he may not have planned to kill George Floyd the fact that an off duty first responder told an officer at the scene that Floyd was losing consciousness and was ignored when she told them they needed to get the knee off of Floyd's neck shows that things that might (emphasis on might - we can't know for sure) have changed the outcome of this shows that the officer's actions are a main factor leading to Floyd's death.  And all of this over the reported passing of a counterfeit $20.00 bill - something that nobody should be killed over. 

However, as I stated earlier in this, while many of us outside the jury can believe Chauvin is guilty of at least manslaughter if not 3rd degree murder, it's up the the jury to decide. They have to put aside any of the media information they may have seen before the trial and focus on the evidence they were given.  Is it possible that they'll find Derek Chauvin guilty? Yes. It can also end up in a not guilty verdict or a mistrial, depending on those 12 jurors and how they read the evidence.

And speaking of mistrials...Chauvin's attorney (Eric Nelson) yesterday in the closing arguments tried to use the statements of Rep. Maxine Waters (D, CA), who stated that Chauvin should be found guilty and that, if he isn't, people need to become vocal vocal and more confrontational, as something that would taint the jury, While the judge dismissed that he stated that they could use that in the mistrial., While that, and the reading of jury instructions when he did (before closing arguments when normally they're read after closing arguments wrap up) are odd it's hard to say whether the jury will take those into account.  Also, as Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks pointed out, nobody asks for a mistrial if they think they're winning.

So will the jury bring a guilty or not guilty verdict for Derek Chauvin? Who knows. We do know that, regardless of the verdict it will be tense out in the streets. Here's hoping the tension doesn't become an explosive powder keg.

A FEW VERY BRIEF THOUGHTS ON THE DEREK CHAUVIN MURDER TRIAL: THE SAD, THE INFURIATING, AND THE WEIRDLY UNDERSTANDABLE

Today marks day five of the Derek Chauvin murder trial in Minneapolis, MN. Chauvin is the former police officer from Minneapolis that faces  charges of 2nd degree unintentional murder, 3rd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd after he and three other officers confronted him over Floyd reportedly passed a $20.00 counterfeit bill at a nearby store, creating a scenario that eventually ended with Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck for between 7 to 10 minutes, including several minutes after Floyd lost consciousness - all caught on cell phone video by bystanders (a nearby video from another angle finds three of the four officers with their knees on Floyd), provoking a summer of unrest that pushed the country only slightly towards reckoning with issues such as police misconduct and systemic racism. 

Like a lot of people I've been forced to rely on snippets and news summaries to see what's going on with the trial; mainly because I have work obligations and other things that have to be done.Because of this I won't go massively in depth over  the case. Instead I want to bring up a few things that have caught my attention. So here's the sad, the infuriating, and the weirdly understandable.

Let's start with the saddest fact. In one of the bystander testimonies an off-duty firefighter who was on the scene and ended up calling 911 as things happened testified that she saw that Floyd's face looked puffy and swollen and that fluids were releasing from his body. She also said she tried asserting herself as a first responder in an attempt to help him but was rebuffed by the officers (she testified one of them - who was standing in a defense position between the officers and the onlookers - rold her that if she really was a firefighter then she'd "know better" than to get involved). 

What makes this truly tragic is that, while hindsight is 20/20 and one can "woulda, shoulda, coulda" anything to death, it's possible that if she were listened to then maybe the outcome would've ended up different.  Again that's not a guarantee but at least an effort could've been made to keep him alive where his reported crime (the passing of a counterfeit $20.00 bill) could'[ve been handled by the legal system rather than the events leading up to Floyd's death.  

The infuriating part of all this is something that's totally to be expected - the decision of the defense to try and put George Floyd on trial for his own killing, claiming Chauvin and his fellow officers had no choice but to take the actions that ended up killing George Floyd. This is a common move over the past decade, especially in cases where white police officers end up killing unarmed black people. Because of that (and the defenses attempt to paint Floyd as either some mythical being with superhuman powers or too nodded out on drugs to function safely) it's one of the standard ways defense attorneys in these cases try to make a case for the officer having no choice but to kill the person they're on trial for killing. What's infuriating is not just that it seems to work most of the time but that it's almost considered a normal defense.  

And then there's the weirdly understandable - the testimony of the clerk at the store pointing out that he couldn't tell if the $20.00 bill was legit or counterfeit and wasn't trained to tell the difference. For a lot of people who've worked cashier positions this rings true to some degree (especially for those working in smaller places) as there might not be training on how to spot a counterfeit bill or not.  The bill could've been counterfeit, it might not have been/ Either way it shouldn't have been a detah sentence for George Floyd.

Those are a few thoughts on the trial from what I've gathered and how ti stands thus far. I do want to add that I find it interesting that there are some cops who may be testifying against Chauvin (including one who testified that Chauvin should let his knee off of Floyd's neck once the latter was handcuffed and not resisting - Chauvin kept it on way longer).  It's interesting because it almost never happens. This means something went way wrong (even with the jury not baing able to hear about the previous police misconduct cases against Chauvin, this is big news).  

At this point one can't say what the verdict will be. While it's possible that Derek Chauvin could be convicted of either murder or manslaughter it's equally likely that he could get off for some reason or another (given how hard it is to prosecute a police officer this is well within the realm of possibility). What is apparent though is that there's something different in this case that calls for some kind of reckoning in the bigger social and political pictures. 

Whatever verdict the jury reaches, this is a stepping stone and the struggle for justice will continue.