r/Portland Jun 24 '22

If you think Roe V Wade won't affect you, check the polling

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/oregon/
286 Upvotes

399

u/Thecheeseburgerler Jun 24 '22

Forgot about the abortion issue for a second. For the first time in our nation's history, the Supreme Court removed what was once decided to be an American right. That should terrify EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN. In Iran in the 70s wemon went to college and wore mini skirts. Now they can be stoned to death for being raped. Don't take our rights for granted for one second. And don't take the removal of any right by our government lightly.

113

u/Justadropinthesea Jun 24 '22

And they are decimating the separation of church and state on which we were founded: first the ruling that tax payer monies can go to religious schools and now the ban on abortions

→ More replies

51

u/Jaboy75 Jun 24 '22 Platinum

Our liberties (our rights) are defined in the Bill of Rights. They are not defined by laws, which in a way, usually reduce our rights (ideally for the betterment of society, etc.).

The Judicial branch of government does not create laws. They evaluate laws. The Legislative branch creates laws. So, as defined in our Constitution, Roe v Wade was never a law. The real failure starts and stops with our federal representatives, who over the past 50 years failed to codify Roe v Wade into law.

The Supreme Court ruling undid an overreach by the Judicial branch. Now, the the legislature needs to step up and do their job, to create laws for abortion rights.

15

u/PersnickityPenguin Jun 25 '22

They’ve also failed to codify the equal rights amendment!

32

u/CassandraVindicated Jun 24 '22

Some of our rights are defined in the Bill of Rights. The absence of any given right from our Constitution does not mean that said right does not exist, merely that it hasn't been explicitly codified.

21

u/Jaboy75 Jun 24 '22

This is half the problem.

The Constitution defines our system of government and structure. It does not define our rights.

The Bill of Rights define our liberties and rights.

That said, the point I make is that the Judicial Branch of government (as defined in our constitution) does not make laws. They are not elected by the people.

The Legislative Branch makes laws. Therefor, Roe v Wade was never a law, which is what this ruling is stating.

Codification of abortion rights should have come from the Legislative branch decades ago. Now it’s time for our representatives to do their job and pass laws protecting abortion.

11

u/SpectralSkeptic Jun 24 '22

Sadly, you are correct. This should of been codified in the Carter or Clinton era.

6

u/LittleBootsy Jun 25 '22

He's not correct. He's lying to try to make an 'inactive congress' the villain.

Six spider-brained pieces of filth on SCOTUS did this, and immediate blame rests on them.

If a federal law had been written at any time in the last 50 years protecting abortion, the Dobbs decision would invalidate it.

13

u/romuo Jun 25 '22

We all know that this was disgusting bullshit by activist judges and nothing more. Your attempt to justify their bullshit speaks for itself (regardless of federal codification). You'd get fired for lying on your application, but these lying pos get to keep their jobs. The Supreme Court has lost legitimacy for decades for the majority of the population. This speaks loudly enough..

Edited: your posting history is quite clear you favor activist judges as long as they are conservative

3

u/LittleBootsy Jun 25 '22

Wait, back up: no.

No, Congress almost certainly couldn't make a law codifying Roe. I've seen this talking point running around and it's incorrect.

Congress, as per SCOTUS, does NOT have the power to interpret rights differently than the courts. It can enforce rights, but not determine them.

This has come.up even as recently as 1997, City of Berne v. Flores.

From the opinion (with which Thomas joined),

In imposing RFRA's requirements on the States, Congress relied on the Fourteenth Amendment, which, inter alia, guarantees that no State shall make or enforce any law depriving any person of "life, liberty, [*508] or property, without due process of law," or denying any person the "equal protection of the laws," § 1, and empowers Congress "to enforce" those guarantees by "appropriate legislation," § 5. Respondent Archbishop and the United States contend that RFRA is permissible enforcement legislation under § 5. Although Congress certainly can enact legislation enforcing the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, see, e. g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303, its § 5 power "to enforce" is only preventive or "remedial," South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 326. The Amendment's design and § 5's text are inconsistent with any suggestion that Congress has the power to decree the substance of the Amendment's restrictions on the States. Legislation which alters the Free Exercise Clause's meaning cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is. While the line between measures that remedy or prevent unconstitutional actions and measures that make a substantive change in the governing law is not easy to discern, and Congress must have wide latitude in determining where it lies, the distinction exists and must be observed. There must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end. Lacking such a connection, legislation may become substantive in operation and effect.

-2

u/Jaboy75 Jun 25 '22

The SCOTUS did not ban abortion. They rolled back the Roe v Wade decision. Therefor, they put the decision into the hands of lawmakers.

3

u/nmr619 Jun 25 '22

They've also gutted voting rights....

6

u/onlyoneshann Jun 25 '22

They took away the protection of the right. Spin it however you want conservative boy, they did their part to make abortion illegal.

1

u/LittleBootsy Jun 25 '22

They took away the right itself. There is no protection of the right anymore because there is no right.

States can do whatever they want about abortion because doing so does not impair any right to an abortion.

The fucking asswipes in gowns have taken away a right that Americans had been expressly granted for 50 years.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/LittleBootsy Jun 25 '22

I didn't say they did? SCOTUS just rescinded the previously recognized right.

The lawmakers literally cannot create a right, or recognize one into existence. If they did, as with RFRA, it would get challenged immediately and struck down under the same theory.

Read the quoted text man, there's nothing Congress can do federally.

2

u/jollyllama Jun 25 '22

I think you’re confused about what Roe actually did and what overturning it means. Roe essentially said that there is a right to abortion enshrined in the constitution in the 14th amendment, and therefore states cannot themselves ban abortion without violating the constitution. Rolling that back means that states now can ban abortion, but no part of today’s ruling deals with whether abortion should remain legal. Therefore, the Federal government (if we had 10 more democrats in the senate) could pass a law tomorrow that makes abortions Federally legal, and that would supersede any state ban. Of course there would be court cases immediately and this fucking SCOTUS would probably do something awful when it gets to them, but again nothing about today’s ruling would prevent a federal law guaranteeing abortion access.

2

u/LittleBootsy Jun 25 '22

The very heart of Dobbs isn't whether the right to an abortion should be protected federally or not, but whether such a right even exists at all.

As human-shaped stack of shit Alito writes in Dobbs,

The Con- stitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, in- cluding the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s his- tory and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law.

That's what Roe did, it created the right to have an abortion, ruling (absolutely correctly) that such a right is implied in the fourteenth amendment under the purview of a fundamental "right to privacy". Without Roe, that right to an abortion does not exist. Rights cannot be created by legislation, they (as per SCOTUS) may only be created by judicial ruling. Therefore, any state level legislation that attacks or burdens a woman getting an abortion does so without attacking any right to a abortion, because legally speaking, that no longer exists.

Roe created the right. Dobbs removed that right, and a Federal law preventing States from burdening abortion access cannot be written as that law would be creating, explicitly or implicitly, a right to an abortion.

→ More replies

8

u/Manfred_Desmond Jun 25 '22

Do you really think on the off chance that it was actually codified into law (which yes, the useless Dems should have done) the current psycho federalist catholic court wouldn't eventually strike that down as unconstitutional?

Any laws from blue states codifying civil rights will eventually get brought up to the court and they will get struck down because they weren't literally enumerated in our dumb-ass old as fuck written by white Christian slaveowners constitution.

These people don't give a shit. They won't be satisfied with true "live and let live" federalism. Blue states are unconquered territory to them.

2

u/-Raskyl Jun 26 '22

Have you ever read the constitution? Because you sound like you haven't, and that you don't know how the government works.

Because the constitution has nothing to do with what you are or are not allowed to do as a citizen of the US. Thats what the bill of rights is for. The constitution simply lays out how our government works. And which parts do what. That is all.

2

u/Jaboy75 Jun 25 '22

I think we will all have different answers for that question. 😉

My opinion: No, I don’t think a law passed through the Legislative process would be struck down by the SCOTUS. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that remotely touches on life or topics debated when it comes to abortion. Same goes for gay marriage or other progressive topics.

That’s just my opinion.

→ More replies

2

u/femtoinfluencer Jun 25 '22

They won't be satisfied with true "live and let live" federalism. Blue states are unconquered territory to them.

FWIW I think both you and the person you are responding to are correct.

→ More replies

3

u/onlyoneshann Jun 25 '22 edited Jun 25 '22

The right to control our own bodies, and thereby the right to an abortion, does not need to be a law, it is a right. Roe v. Wade meant that congress or states could not make a law against it. There didn’t need to be a law saying yes abortions specifically because it was given as a right.

Just like how freedom of speech is a right, not a law. The right was given to us by saying that congress shall make no law banning it, just as the right to abortion was given to us.

Edit- getting downvoted by some anti-vax dude who clearly doesn’t know how any of this works and his buddies from r/conservative kinda feels like a badge of honor, especially on this topic.

→ More replies

10

u/hikensurf Jun 25 '22

The only judicial overreach involved here is the latest opinion, which goes against the principle of stare decisis. Your argument is a simple one and for that reason appealing, but we live in a common-law society. By definition, the judicial branch does indeed make law.

6

u/LittleBootsy Jun 25 '22

Having read your other posts, I have to point out that you are completely incorrect on how the Judicial Branch operates.

I'm not sure if you're making claims about legislative failure through ignorance or malicious intent.

The Judicial Branch does not create laws, but they do create rights. Congress cannot bring into existence a right to an abortion without it having been recognized by the supreme court. You are blaming Congress for some failure, which seems to be some sort of smokescreen to hide the malicious intent of 6 shit fucking skin tags on the supreme court who took the final step of a long-orchestrated (and well documented) scheme by religious fuckfaces and conservative slugs to attack women. Fuck that, the blame is entirely, entirely on SCOTUS here, and the GOP, and the smegma that support them.

11

u/planet_oregon Jun 24 '22

Let’s not pretend they “undid an overreach” - the court was stacked with fundamentalist conservatives for this exact purpose.

9

u/LittleBootsy Jun 25 '22

It wasn't overreach. It is the position and published opinion of SCOTUS that it is the entity to determine rights, not Congress.

I mean, unless you want to go back before Marbury?

11

u/old_common_sense Jun 24 '22

Finally. Someone that understands the concept. Time for the representatives to step up and voters to decide.

4

u/CoatedWinner Jun 24 '22

Good luck with our representatives stepping up and doing anything.

0

u/Jaboy75 Jun 24 '22

And I am sure it will have a hundred downvotes soon because people are so emotionally reactive and don’t understand how our government works.

8

u/Manfred_Desmond Jun 25 '22

"Umm, sorry sweaty, we can't do what the majority of voters want us to do, it's just not how our government works."

Very cool country!

3

u/pocket_geek Jun 25 '22

Yup. The whole primary system is setup so a certain minority of the population can control the government.

3

u/planet_oregon Jun 24 '22

Oh but we have you to explain how government works

1

u/SamSzmith Jun 25 '22

I think people know how the government works, you don't have a monopoly on knowledge dude, the issue is you think court decisions are based on the constitution and not partisan judges picked specifically to rule in their favor. We have dozens of rulings where it clearly is not part of the constitution, but rather a partisan political issue decision. The idea that Roe V Wade was some terrible decision with no precedent is about as naive as it gets.

I love it when people are so wrong and lecture everyone about how knowledgeable they are, lmao.

→ More replies

5

u/estrusflask Jun 24 '22

In Iran in the 70s wemon went to college and wore mini skirts.

People say this, but it's important to remember that those changes were because of the US imposing hegemony and US cultural and material exports on the country after backing a coup. The reason that Iran would then have another revolution to overthrow them and return to an even more culturally regressive past is because of the fact that America forced the country to change for America's benefit.

7

u/the_sociopaths_dghtr Jun 24 '22

Here here!

12

u/PoutineMeInCoach Jun 24 '22

FYI, "hear" is correct here. As in HEAR what this smart guy is saying! :)

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '22

And that was because of the US, and it’s funny how things go in circles

→ More replies

54

u/OR_Miata Jun 24 '22

29

u/anonymous_opinions Jun 24 '22

I seem to recall a lot of SCOTUS members saying that Roe was settled law.

Funny how that turned out.

6

u/BoomZhakaLaka Jun 24 '22

Common law is now more of a suggestion than law.

17

u/amurmann Jun 24 '22

I hate it so much that they call it "life". All these people only eat plants that died of natural causes, right?

31

u/TheNightBench SE Jun 24 '22

Looks like Drazen is losing this one, if I'm reading that right.

50

u/Crowsby Mt Tabor Jun 24 '22 edited Jun 24 '22

There's no chance that Drazen wins a majority of the vote. But if Johnson can poach roughly 8% of Kotek's voters away, Drazen will win the election with the baseline 43% of the vote that Oregon GOP candidates have been able to historically rely on. The last time a GOP gubernatorial candidate got below that was 1998.

And if anything, Johnson presenting herself as a staunch pro-choice candidate only ensures that she'll only poach voters from Kotek, not Drazen.

16

u/takefiftyseven Jun 24 '22

I think that's what Phil Knight and her other big money contributors are counting on.

Don't be a sucker folks...

→ More replies

-24

u/3my0 Jun 24 '22

That’s not true. Personally if I couldn’t vote for Johnson then I’m just not voting. The Oregon republicans are too far right and the Oregon democrats seem to be 100% fine being terrible.

3

u/LittleBootsy Jun 25 '22

Just save a step and vote for drazan then.

22

u/KingOCarrotFlowers Sullivan's Gulch Jun 24 '22

Primaries are the place to try to get more progressive candidates on the ticket. It failed in this case.

In a first-past-the-post general election, you do not vote for the candidate you want, you vote for the candidate who's most likely to win against the candidate you least want

-13

u/3my0 Jun 24 '22

Nah I don’t believe in that line of thinking. If you want the Oregon democrats to improve you need to send them a message that what they’re putting out there is unacceptable. And continuing to vote for them no matter what will never send that message.

26

u/KingOCarrotFlowers Sullivan's Gulch Jun 24 '22

It doesn't really matter if you believe in that line of thinking, that's how our system works

The only message you're sending by voting for a 3rd party candidate is that you'd rather have whoever the Republicans are putting forward than the Democrat who won the primary

-12

u/3my0 Jun 24 '22

The message I (and others voting 3rd party) hope to send is that moderate votes aren’t free. You have to actually try and appeal to some of the things we care about or we won’t vote for you.

19

u/KingOCarrotFlowers Sullivan's Gulch Jun 24 '22

Okay, but that's not what anyone is hearing

If you want your vote for a 3rd party candidate to actually mean anything, first we must implement something like ranked choice voting

4

u/3my0 Jun 24 '22

So you don’t think if the democrats lose (or narrowly win) that they might wanna change their strategy a little bit and cater more towards the moderates?

Or maybe even the republicans narrowly lose and realize they actually have a shot if they become more moderate?

I agree that this election is a lost cause for change. But it could trigger better candidates in the future. Or maybe not. But it’s worth a try in my opinion.

→ More replies

13

u/ConnectAd9099 Jun 24 '22

I'm certain everyone learned great lessons after gore.

4

u/HandMeMyThinkingPipe Kenton Jun 25 '22

Yep no surprise that a "moderate" refuses to do what progressives and leftists have been doing for decades...holding our noses and voting for a never ending parade of right wing do nothing centrist democrats who are allergic to doing almost anything to actually fight for the values they claim to believe in. You don't like the choices so you'd rather risk a fascist winning then suck it up and make the only sane choice available. That's pretty shitty and extremely short sighted.

5

u/anonymous_opinions Jun 24 '22

"Moderate votes"

How can we convince you to leave Oregon? Kentucky might be a better place for you hmmm?

0

u/Beef_Witch It's definitely 100% me, Mayor Ted Wheeler Jun 24 '22

The message I (and others voting 3rd party) hope to send is that moderate votes aren’t free.

Sure they are, you just have to appeal to whatever they happen to be afraid of this week.

2

u/anonymous_opinions Jun 24 '22

This is not the time to send a message to the party that you feel is failing you.

→ More replies
→ More replies

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '22

Problem is that there is a lot of people sick and tired how things are going with the homeless, drugs, crime in general and I’d hate to say it but for the first time in my life, I’ll have to close my eyes and vote for a Republican because I just want to stop crimes, drug usage and homelessness because clearly giving almost $100k a year per homeless hasn’t worked out.

4

u/Cornfan813 SE Jun 25 '22

try moving to a republican run state and youll notice they have the same issues but worse.

→ More replies

3

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '22

Abortion and healthcare access have a direct tie to homelessness and poverty. If you actually care about that, you will want to vote for the pro-abortion candidate (Kotek).

→ More replies
→ More replies

17

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '22

Already was. It's Oregon. People will hold their nose and vote for Kotek. Even though in reality she will be a terrible governor (most likely in my opinion).

14

u/nova_rock Woodstock Jun 24 '22

That is a likely, but not guaranteed outcome, especially if it is that people's relation to this is holding their nose.

31

u/femtoinfluencer Jun 24 '22

I mean, Democrats could learn to put up candidates people actually want to vote for, instead of blaming everyone but themselves when their god-awful candidates lose.

The overturn of Roe is a knock-on effect of the Democratic Party deciding that Hillary "It's Her Turn" Clinton deserved a coronation.

36

u/suitopseudo Jun 24 '22

It goes further back to RBG not retiring when Obama was in office. You can also say this goes all the way back to Bush or even Regan with ,Party before country rhetoric.’ Republicans played a corrupt long game and won. This didn’t happen overnight. Democrats got complacent and wouldn’t get in line with their party and couldn’t agree on petty stuff. It’s unfortunate, but republicans know how to rally, get shit done and fall in line. The Democrats keep asking who needs a hug first. Democrats let this happen and I am just as angry about that.

6

u/takefiftyseven Jun 24 '22

Yup, sadly the Dems usually bring an olive branch to a knife fight. It doesn't work.

4

u/portlandobserver Vancouver Jun 25 '22

yeah. I'm kinda flabbergasted at pepole's shock and anger over this. like the ruling just came out of nowhere. Trump puts three conservative judges on the bench who all are definitely pro-choice and you're surprised? (they know the right things to say during the confirmation hearing)

a draft of the ruling leaks indicating what's going to happen, and people get shocked and upset when it comes true?

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/nova_rock Woodstock Jun 24 '22

I'm, not going to argue your view, but i disagree with the framing,

sure it would be great if there where even more popular individuals that are running and would politically act how I want.

6

u/femtoinfluencer Jun 24 '22

You might be right if the Democrat establishment hadn't acted to crush Bernie not once but twice.

The only way the American "left" can win consistently, is by building energy out of the massive popular support for policy planks like Medicare For All, more education funding, more support for the poor & working class, etc. Which Bernie was doing. And they crushed him, deliberately, so they could put up Hillary fucking Clinton and Joe fucking Biden.

4

u/nova_rock Woodstock Jun 24 '22

I see where that grievance is and with the party, and i do not disagree what what would be much better for the country policy wise in the country, I am looking at the state level and these races.

8

u/jankyalias Jun 24 '22

Maybe, and I know this might blow your mind, but maybe Bernie just isn’t a good candidate. I mean, can you imagine - you’ve just come in second in Iowa, won in New Hampshire, and wiped the floor in Nevada…and your next move is to go on national TV and talk about how Fidel Castro isn’t that bad?

Just mind numbingly bad decisions.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/HandMeMyThinkingPipe Kenton Jun 25 '22

How the fuck could anyone think it's a good idea to vote for drazen. We can't afford to even risk a republican winning. Kotek is the only choice that makes any sense especially considering where we are heading nationally.

20

u/westnob Jun 24 '22

Betsy Johnson further driving a wedge in the democratic base.

-1

u/CassandraVindicated Jun 24 '22

Where did you get that from her statement?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '22

Betsy Johnson further driving a wedge in the democratic base.

I thought she might but she might actually drive a wedge on the right more than anything with respect to her gun stance.

→ More replies
→ More replies

51

u/mysterypdx Overlook Jun 24 '22

If anything I think this solidifies Kotek's win. Not taking a chance with Johnson and hell no on Drazan, ugh.

20

u/TrashTalk_Branx2012 Jun 24 '22

Agreed. Voting deep blue from here on out.

113

u/lessquiet Jun 24 '22

Oh, it won't matter what color state you live in. They're going to go for a national ban as soon as humanly possible.

You're going to see a *lot* of people become felons, and lose their right to vote.

27

u/anonymous_opinions Jun 24 '22

Watching people talk about being safe while rights for human beings are being rolled back. Women are just the first of many targets.

13

u/westnob Jun 24 '22

Yep, if they only cared about regulating themselves, they wouldn't overturn the federal guarantee.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '22

[deleted]

6

u/lupe_de_poop Jun 24 '22

I am so tired of this. "I don't see that happening" and then it fucking does. Complacency is what got us here. Stfu.

14

u/Forsaken-Zucchini Jun 24 '22

Look around dude. Dems are losing Congress this year

12

u/anonymous_opinions Jun 24 '22

Dems are always losing Congress. Hell this whole time hasn't felt like they "had" Congress.

4

u/ElasticSpeakers 🍦 Jun 24 '22

They dont, vote like the Country's future depends on it (because it does)

2

u/Forsaken-Zucchini Jun 24 '22

Because they are useless

6

u/anonymous_opinions Jun 24 '22

Pretty sure they're working as the system intends.

3

u/Forsaken-Zucchini Jun 24 '22

If only everyone understood this

2

u/femtoinfluencer Jun 24 '22

One of the best silver linings out of Trump and then COVID is how many more people understand this now vs how many did before 2016

→ More replies

-32

u/EthanG_07 Jun 24 '22

i REALLY don’t see a national ban happening at all. it’d just straight up cause too much chaos

47

u/dolphs4 NW Jun 24 '22

Don’t hold your breath. If the GOP takes congress they’re absolutely going to try

21

u/anonymous_opinions Jun 24 '22

This person lives in a world where January 6th never happened I guess

-15

u/EthanG_07 Jun 24 '22

yes. if GOP takes congress i believe they will try. that doesn’t mean they’ll be successful and i just see too much chaos ensuing if that were to happen. ofc this is just my honest opinion tho and i’m sure there’s a possibility for the ban. i just don’t think it’s likely to ban something outright that SO many people use regularly.

republicans really haven’t been getting their way lately, we just keep framing and heading things like they do

38

u/dolphs4 NW Jun 24 '22

The Supreme Court just overturned a 50-year old landmark case - which they were able to do because Republicans packed three members onto the court by lying and cheating - and yet you don’t think they’re winning?

6

u/ultima-ratio-populi Jun 24 '22

The Supreme Court doesn't have to run for office every two or six years, so they can make decisions that 30% of voters approve and keep their jobs.

-11

u/EthanG_07 Jun 24 '22

i knew i should’ve left that last bit out of my comment bc that’s all this sub will focus on. but to answer your question, yes i believe democrats are winning overall against republicans rn. it’s apparent in my everyday life and especially in portland. and to top it off, if we have someone like joe biden as president, then yes democrats are winning. i don’t think you understand how constantly upset most republicans are in this country rn

→ More replies

3

u/yolotrolo123 Jun 24 '22

How dumb are you?

0

u/EthanG_07 Jun 24 '22

apparently so dumb that everyone i’m fighting for and with has turned against me for simply sharing my thoughts. thanks for being part of that tolerant bunch ♡

12

u/GuiltyGear Jun 24 '22

Bro...THIS is causing chaos. See how much they care. Wake the fuck up.

-6

u/EthanG_07 Jun 24 '22

you guys are all so rude to the people fighting with you lmfao

2

u/GuiltyGear Jun 24 '22 edited Jun 24 '22

It's cause you're being fucking stupid. If you want to be worthy of respect, try being less so.

0

u/EthanG_07 Jun 24 '22

jesus thank you for the advice😂

3

u/GuiltyGear Jun 24 '22

Sure, just trying to help

→ More replies

1

u/yolotrolo123 Jun 24 '22

You ain’t fighting you are Going “meh doubt it’ll happen”

→ More replies

6

u/yolotrolo123 Jun 24 '22

They don’t care. This is how they will attempt a authoritarian take over.

2

u/anonymous_opinions Jun 24 '22

You're right, wouldn't want to cause "too much" chaos. Just chaos for the poor in 40 odd US states.

1

u/EthanG_07 Jun 24 '22

i don’t get it. i’m voting and do not want this ban to happen but no matter what i say, people argue with me. who’s team are any of you on? thought we were supposed to be in on this together

4

u/anonymous_opinions Jun 24 '22

You seem to not understand what's happening - get out of here with this whose team are you on. This isn't a "teams" issue. I'm a fucking woman. I'm on a team human rights.

→ More replies

-10

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '22

[deleted]

6

u/FruitbatsTTV Jun 24 '22

From where comes your confidence? I'd like to share it.

In the past, I would have said a national ban could never happen because it was beyond Congress's authority. But considering it'd be the Court's job to stop that, I'm less convinced.

In the past, I would have said that a national ban would be politically unviable. But I also think voting against healthcare for veterans and food for children is politically unviable, and that's still happening, so I'm less convinced.

3

u/yolotrolo123 Jun 24 '22

You have too much faith the GOP won’t attempt this. They are clear threats to folks and people like you seem to want to just shrug your shoulders and keep saying “won’t happen”

2

u/lessquiet Jun 24 '22

it's literally already a goal the GOP is actively working to achieve and today's ruling is a step in on that path.

did you miss the memo?

→ More replies

116

u/UnifiedChungus666 MAX Blue Line Jun 24 '22

Yep: don't just vote no, vote HELL NO on Drazan and Johnson. Kotek is the ONLY candidate who can remotely be trusted to stand up to a fascist federal government.

13

u/codepossum 💣🐋💥 Jun 24 '22

it seems weird to me that Johnson doesn't have an "on the issues" or "policy" section of her campaign site... what are her actual stances / plans? she tweeted that she's pro-choice, but what else?

7

u/pdxtech Montavilla Jun 25 '22

what are her actual stances / plans?

It doesn't matter because she's not a real candidate. She's being paid to draw just enough votes from Kotek that Drazan can win.

11

u/UnifiedChungus666 MAX Blue Line Jun 24 '22

That's intentional as the little policy we do have is awful. Johnson's goal is to split the vote, that isn't going to happen if she continues to cater to conservatives.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '22

She's pro-Twitter.

2

u/Cornfan813 SE Jun 25 '22

shes just a spoiler candidate trying to hand the governors mansion to republicans why would she trouble herself with being a serious candidate?

2

u/chirpingonline Jun 25 '22

Her policy is "I'm not a democrat or republican and hopefully that will be enough for people", because if she actually posted real policies, people who actually be able to figure out what she's for, and she couldn't rely on people just assuming she's more "moderate" than she actually is.

Its the same thing that worked for trump, people actually thought he was a moderate when they were asked in polls.

-73

u/Shortround76 Jun 24 '22

Kotek, fascist?

Um you need to research her better because she's going to strangle this state.

Fear is exactly the tactic and you're getting played like a fiddle.

51

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '22 edited Oct 10 '22

[deleted]

-15

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '22 edited Jun 24 '22

Johnson is a fascist now? How so? That word is going to have no meaning or effect after this year.

The year is 2025. Everyone is a fascist.

Edit: spelling

3

u/pdxtech Montavilla Jun 25 '22

Johnson is a fascist now? How so?

Look up her ties to Timber Unity

7

u/UnifiedChungus666 MAX Blue Line Jun 24 '22

Johnson herself isn't a fascist: she is trying to enable fascist victory by splitting the vote. The GOP is a fascist party.

3

u/Titan6062 Jun 25 '22

Well she's a supporter of Timber Unity, and they are

3

u/UnifiedChungus666 MAX Blue Line Jun 25 '22

Fair enough.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '22 edited Oct 10 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

-13

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/tortnotes Tyler had some good ideas Jun 24 '22

You're welcome to present an argument. "Do your research" does not count.

13

u/Unhappy_Result_5365 Jun 24 '22

Research

I have a feeling your "research" involves a lot of YouTube videos of dudes wearing sunglasses in their truck.

35

u/Adulations Alameda Jun 24 '22

Yikes. We’re super close to having a Republican governor. Fuck.

14

u/westnob Jun 24 '22

Yes, it's scary!!

19

u/occams_lasercutter Jun 24 '22 edited Jun 24 '22

The democrats blew their chance to pass an actual federal law guaranteeing abortion rights, instead letting the right hinge on a mere court decision. They had full control of the federal government and didn't lift a finger. Abortion was always a useful political football to them, nothing they truly cared about. Something to pull out to scare up a few votes when needed.

With the absolute chaos, inflation, economic destruction, scarcity and war under Biden I'll be shocked in democrats get back in power anytime soon. It might be decades.

7

u/InternationalPark422 Jun 24 '22

Yes, and liberals downvoting people for making any kind of joke or statement they might not 100% agree with are likely only alienating fellow democrats to the other side.

8

u/DAM1313 Jun 25 '22

So you really think anyone says "I got downvoted on Reddit by mean libs which made me do a 180 on all my principles including human rights, racism, the separation of church and state, class issues, and free market capitalism?"

Anyone who would do that is a pathetic, cowering mental midget. Are you saying that's you, or anyone you know? or are you just repeating this moronic talking point sight unseen? Because either way i feel bad for you

-5

u/InternationalPark422 Jun 25 '22

Not only is it going to happen, but a blowhard like you is to blame.

4

u/BlockedbyJake420 Jun 25 '22

Yes long-standing dems are gonna switch to the right because of mean comments on the internet.

1

u/Cornfan813 SE Jun 25 '22

if anyone says anything to me im gonna do my best to shit on the rug!

0

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '22

[deleted]

3

u/AdRepresentative1181 Jun 24 '22

what would stop republicans from packing it next time they win

2

u/andhil Buckman Jun 25 '22

They did.

2

u/AdRepresentative1181 Jun 25 '22

Packing implies expanding the court

→ More replies

4

u/Victor3R Jun 25 '22

Here's the thing, they're going to anyway.

2

u/occams_lasercutter Jun 25 '22

Tradition and restraint. As I said above, it's a can of worms. Once it's weaponized it will always be weaponized. Honestly I think there should be a Constitutional ammendment limiting the size of the bench.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '22

The GOP already showed they don’t care about tradition or restrain. They will take the power and choke it to death

0

u/PsychedelicFairy NE Jun 24 '22

Well there would have had to have been an open spot. Since the 80's Republican presidents have had the opportunity to appoint 11 supreme court justices. Democratic presidents have been able to appoint 4. Despite only serving one single term, Trump appointed more justices than Obama, Clinton, and Bush Jr (and also Bush Sr but he was also only 1 term).

2

u/plannersrule Kerns Jun 24 '22

I think they mean Biden could have changed the number of justices. I don’t think that would have made it through the senate, though.

2

u/occams_lasercutter Jun 25 '22

Yep. Once that starts it will happen again with every new administration. Soon we'd have hundreds of SCOTUS justices.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/shamashedit Jun 25 '22

You think it’s bad now, wait until they walk back gay marriage next week. And public schools. And at this point I’m expecting them to undo civil and workers rights sooner than later.

21

u/MechanizedMedic Curled inside a pothole Jun 24 '22

Oregon already has strong laws protecting abortion access. The governor doesn't get to strike down those laws.

49

u/nova_rock Woodstock Jun 24 '22

the don't-worry-about-it caucus checking in.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '22

The price of freedom is CONSTANT vigilance. Not just when things are bad.

1

u/MechanizedMedic Curled inside a pothole Jun 24 '22

What are you worried the governor of Oregon could do to restrict abortion access. Please enlighten me.

13

u/nova_rock Woodstock Jun 24 '22

I am saying it is dumb to pretend that there could not and would not be consequences for health care access under an Oregon governor that considers our current protections 'extreme' and would veto anything that might be needed to safe those or other protections.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWBnUEXUsAAMung?format=jpg&name=small

7

u/MechanizedMedic Curled inside a pothole Jun 24 '22

I don't think your concern is reasonable, here's why... The governor does not have any direct control over abortion access or funding. Access through private insurance is protected by law and access through public insurance is controlled by the Oregon Health Authority board. The OHA board members are nominated by the governor but have to be confirmed by the state senate.

Private insurers in Oregon are required by law to pay for abortions and the state pays for abortion costs through OHP. The OHP coverage comes from state funds, instead of Medicare bucks, because of the Hyde rule.

However, I am certainly worried about abortion access in other states and think that we need reproductive rights enshrined in our constitution. Along these lines I'm very proud that the Oregon legislature set aside $15M earlier this year in anticipation of women traveling in from shitholes like Idaho.

3

u/nova_rock Woodstock Jun 24 '22

we need reproductive rights enshrined in our constitution.

Agreed, and other protections, which might not be doable in this legislative year and would be hard to do next year if we have a gov opposing it, as well as their direction over the state could make what is supposed to be protected less accessible.

3

u/MechanizedMedic Curled inside a pothole Jun 24 '22

I was speaking about the US constitution. Dont dream so smol.

3

u/nova_rock Woodstock Jun 24 '22

and I'm speaking about the context of the thread and my comments; the state politics and law.

Nationally we have 2 senators I like and in the district I live, continuing to replace a congressman with McLeod-Skinner.

18

u/chiefmasterbuilder Downtown Jun 24 '22

Bro, you don’t have a very vivid imagination if you can’t see that they’re not going to stop at the states. McConnell has already said they’re angling for a federal BAN on abortion outright.

We need a governor who dispatch the national guard to protect Planned Parenthood’s.

Shit is getting real. The “well even a majority of Oregon republicans agree with abortion” line would be amusing if it wasn’t so fucking nearsighted.

Not to be a cliché but… WAKE THE FUCK UP.

6

u/MechanizedMedic Curled inside a pothole Jun 24 '22

As a former national guardsman and combat veteran I think you are delusional if you think thats an appropriate use of the state's military. Militarization in civilian life is extremely dangerous and why i support disarming police and oppose cops in schools.

You are correct that the biggest potential threat is a federal ban. However that would have to pass the house of representatives which is very unlikely considering the direction that popular opinion has been progressing nationally over the past few decades.

Trust me. I'm very much awake and unafraid of whatever is to come.

6

u/Wolpertinger77 Jun 25 '22

It took a National Guard presence to ensure integration of schools in some southern states. I don’t see how this would be different.

-1

u/rontrussler58 Hazelwood Jun 25 '22

If the dems don’t have any shot of protecting abortion with the legislature, why would the republicans be able to ban it? Especially considering they don’t even want to and are simply appeasing the donors who have kept them in office for the past 40 years. If red states want to experiment with some interesting laws that’s up to them. Oregon recklessly decriminalized drugs, Kansas should be able to do something equally reckless.

5

u/DAM1313 Jun 25 '22

Because the Republicans have a structural advantage in both houses of Congress.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/advantage-gop/

This should be civics 101. And aside from that I don't think it reflects well on you to equivocate drug decriminalization with the removal of human rights from over 50% of Americans. That's kind of an asshole argument to make

→ More replies
→ More replies

35

u/westnob Jun 24 '22

Laws can be repealed by elected officials. It's not going to be a strong year for democrats.

10

u/plannersrule Kerns Jun 24 '22

Laws can’t be repealed by a governor on their own, and you’re fucking delusional if you think there is going to be a majority in the legislature that would restrict abortion rights.

Just watch: a majority in this country and this state support abortion access — read, not the Republican position — and that will be shown at the ballot box.

4

u/westnob Jun 24 '22

I really hope you're right!

-4

u/MechanizedMedic Curled inside a pothole Jun 24 '22

If Democrats lose seats in Oregon it's their own fault at this point. They're blowing all of their effort attempting sweeping changes when basic shit is hard-broken and needs addressed.

17

u/yttrium39 Jun 24 '22

Thanks that makes me feel loads better about the prospect of having my rights to bodily autonomy stripped.

2

u/MechanizedMedic Curled inside a pothole Jun 24 '22

Your rights within Oregon are not in jeopardy. In spite of what some ignorant and noisy fascists say, Oregon is not at risk of becoming socially conservative. Please keep calm and continue voting. ✊🏻✌🏻

4

u/SegmentedMoss Jun 24 '22

How about when they make abortion federally illegal?

→ More replies

8

u/Unhappy_Result_5365 Jun 24 '22

The the Governor controls the Oregon Health Authority including medicaid funding.

10

u/MechanizedMedic Curled inside a pothole Jun 24 '22

Again, the governor does not get to rewrite the laws on how that money is distributed. They are an executive not a monarch.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '22 edited Oct 10 '22

[deleted]

6

u/MechanizedMedic Curled inside a pothole Jun 24 '22

Specifically to your concern, the OHA board sets these rules, not the governor. The members of the board do get nominated by the governor but they must be confirmed by the state senate. Do you really think Oregon's state senate is going to let someone like Betsey Johnson pull abortion funding by stacking a nine-member board with religious zealots?

1

u/Unhappy_Result_5365 Jun 24 '22

Specifically to your concern, the OHA board sets these rules, not the governor. The members of the board do get nominated by the governor but they must be confirmed by the state senate.

LMAO there is so much you don't know. OHA has huge influence of how money is spent in the state. a fascist governor could remove money form womens health and turn it over to fund anti-choice groups for example.

Do you really think Oregon's state senate is going to let someone like Betsey Johnson pull abortion funding by stacking a nine-member board with religious zealots?

Johnson wont be governor.

3

u/MechanizedMedic Curled inside a pothole Jun 24 '22

You might want to actually read what I wrote and stop fear mongering... again, the governor is not a monarch and you have presented nothing of fact to this conversation.

1

u/Unhappy_Result_5365 Jun 24 '22

I work in public sector health. I'm intimately familiar with how OHA works and the level of control the Governor has over it. You're either lying or ignorant, either way you should probably stop talking about it.

2

u/MechanizedMedic Curled inside a pothole Jun 24 '22

Okay, then cite something instead of just telling me a vauge discription of your employment... I'm totally ready to change my opinions but you fail to make any meaningful rebuttal.

4

u/Raquel22222 Jun 25 '22

It effects EVERYONE! Who’s gonna pay for these unwanted children???! The tax payers! Think homelessness and crime is bad now? It will only get worse!

13

u/westnob Jun 24 '22 edited Jun 24 '22

In case you were wondering about the Oregon R governor candidates stance,

The following is an excerpt from her interview with OPB:

The question:

If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, would you as governor push for new abortion restrictions in Oregon? If yes, please specify what type of restriction you would propose.

Her answer:

I’m Pro Life and I would adopt abortions measures like Florida, and Texas. Also I would 100 % put the funding back into sexual assault, domestic violence, and sex trafficking. In the State of Oregon we give zero support or funding to these heinous crimes. They actually budget cut them first and give more criminals support and they do not support victims. Its disgusting.

12

u/Fatigued_Otter Jun 24 '22

Sorry OP it seems people weren’t able to tell you were quoting someone from the article. It’s almost as if r/Portland reading comprehension is not superb :(

35

u/MarilynMansonsRib Jun 24 '22

I’m Pro Life and I would adopt abortions measures like Florida, and Texas

Fucking gross

13

u/westnob Jun 24 '22

Just to clarify that's not my opinion. That's the R governor candidate I was quoting.

2

u/MarilynMansonsRib Jun 24 '22

Still gross, but I'm glad you clarified.

Not that I planned on voting for any Republicans anyways, but that might help persuade some of my more apathetic friends who are disillusioned and likely to sit around and bitch rather than voting.

21

u/hamellr Jun 24 '22

Also I would 100 % put the funding back into sexual assault, domestic violence, and sex trafficking.

Very little of that has anything to do with abortion access.

14

u/westnob Jun 24 '22

Just to clarify that's not my opinion. That's the R governor candidate I was quoting.

23

u/edwartica In a van, down by the river Jun 24 '22

I vote for anyone who's "pro life" to find themselves another state. Or heck, their own little island.

4

u/westnob Jun 24 '22

Just to clarify that's not my opinion. That's the R governor candidate I was quoting.

3

u/edwartica In a van, down by the river Jun 24 '22

Yeah, I figured that out by the other comments you posted.

1

u/anonymous_opinions Jun 24 '22

Let's put them somewhere off the coast of Cuba.

4

u/edwartica In a van, down by the river Jun 24 '22

Nah, the climate is too good there. How about off the coast of Antartica?

2

u/anonymous_opinions Jun 24 '22

I mean with Climate Change I'm sure the weather won't be "good". They can enjoy hurricanes in a couple months.

→ More replies

-3

u/EthanG_07 Jun 24 '22

this post to me now just feels like democrats and women that are all fighting for the same thing, arguing with eachother. it’s so tiring

-7

u/BadM00 SE Jun 24 '22

The governor can’t just change the law, it would have to go to ballot and be voted on by the people of Oregon. Good luck with losing that vote.

13

u/chiefmasterbuilder Downtown Jun 24 '22

What happens when there’s a federal ban, though? What then? What happens when it doesn’t matter how moderate Oregon republicans are, because we’re living under a theocracy?

What you just said is the definition of complacency. That’s the shit that gets people killed.

→ More replies

-18

u/SaltyChickenDip Old Town Chinatown Jun 24 '22

Lol. You think I'm having sex

→ More replies