Senate Democrats’ Unanimous Fail

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

This is fucking maddening.

Not one bloody Democrat voted against this unnecessary crap. Local police could do more to enforce ordinances against noise and the lack of protest permits but you had go on the record supporting this fascist suppression of First Amendment speech instead.

Perhaps these Senate Dems were thinking ahead to the day Ketanji Brown Jackson is sworn in as a justice and needs protection. But without any statement to the Democratic base explaining this, the base can only assume they are protecting from First Amendment-protected protests the fascist wing of the SCOTUS which is intent on destroying women’s rights to autonomy.

While Senate Dems’ unanimously support protecting fascist jurists from their neighbors who aren’t happy with them, or gods forbid, the horrors of chalked messages on sidewalks like those which terrified Sen. Susan Collins…

…this is what’s going on in Realityville, USA.

The patient in this thread would have been dead in states where zero tolerance abortion laws have been or will be passed.

She’d tried to avoid getting pregnant and it still wasn’t enough to stop an ectopic pregnancy which threatened her life.

The patient in this next thread would have been prosecuted.

She didn’t even know she was pregnant, but if there had been any misinterpretation of her symptoms and history she would have been prosecuted for aborting the fetus.

As she notes women have already been prosecuted for miscarriages.

While Senate Democrats unanimously supported protections for SCOTUS against so-scary First Amendment protests, states are moving to eliminate women’s basic human rights — like traveling to another state for health care.

Because treating women’s reproductive organs is health care and Texas can’t have that.

Somewhere soon, within hours or days, women are going to begin to die from these anti-abortion, anti-women laws passed in red states. The first will be women with ectopic pregnancies who will bleed out while hospital employees stand around and tell her they can’t do anything about it though the mortal threat can be treated by aborting the unviable pregnancy.

Partitions between states will appear as new state laws are introduced, creating what are little more than concentration camps for women — yes, concentration camps because Texas women of childbearing age will not be able to leave Texas if there’s any possibility they may be pregnant.

Imagine having to take a pregnancy test before being allowed to cross a state line; it’s not an outside possibility.

These laws within these partitioned states will deny fundamental human rights to a class of citizens.

We’ve seen this before and fought a civil war over it.

But do pat yourselves on the back, Senate Democrats — you’ve ensured the Supreme Court’s fascist faction which leaked the salvo setting off this cryptic civil war is protected from women writing poignant demands on the sidewalk in front of their homes.

Go, you. Especially you, Sen. Chris Coons. How bipartisan of you to work with the concentration camp state’s Sen. John Cornyn. Don’t let the appearance of two white men get in the way of shepherding a bill intended to assure the abolition of rights for more than half the population doesn’t inconvenience the people who will ensure those rights are abolished.

95 replies
  1. Rayne says:

    Goddamnitall. I’m just sick about this bullshit and the Senate Dems just roll over and play dead.

    Obvious as hell.

    • Todd Gee says:

      When protesters are outside your home picketing against you for taking away the right to decide what to do with your own body, its best to just lie back and enjoy it.

        • gmoke says:

          “Lie back and enjoy it” has been supercilious male advice about rape for as long as I remember.

          Glad you never heard it, as it’s an odious idea.

          • bmaz says:

            That is complete bullshit. I understand that part completely. That does not mean I think people’s private homes and families ought be violated too.

            • P J Evans says:

              AIUI, they’re on sidewalks. And next-door neighbors’ property, the protests having been organized by said neighbors.

              They don’t think women should have full human rights, like privacy and authority over their own health. Should their privacy take precedence?

            • Troutwaxer says:

              If there were protestors outside Sotomayor’s door, no Republican would have voted for the bill. Trump would have been ranting and raving about how the Anti-White justice is stupid and racist and she deserves it, and the Republicans would have bowed before him and killed the bill, probably with help from Manchin and Sinema.

              Meanwhile, let the Supreme Clown Posse learn about stupid games and stupid prizes!

            • gmoke says:

              Talk to Mayor Wu of Boston* and, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve read the Supremes ruled awhile ago that picketing outside the homes of abortion providers was protected speech. Gander meet goose.

              * There has been talk about limiting the hours in which picketing at private homes can occur but I’m not sure such legislation has been passed.

      • Rayne says:

        Which is pretty much standard GOP policy at this point when it comes to nonconsensual activities.

        ‘Lie back and enjoy it.’ Michigan candidate’s rape comments slammed by GOP

        Adder: this asshat thankfully lost the strongly GOP Michigan state house seat for 74th district in a special election on May 3 to a Democrat, Carol Glanville. He was so bad he couldn’t hang onto a district in the DeVos-Prince families’ backyard; he did manage to get 40% of the vote, though, so let’s not kid ourselves about how wretched the MIGOP is.

        • Alan Charbonneau says:

          I seem to recall an impeached Arizona governor making a similar statement. He also said Japanese businessmen would go “round-eyed” over the AZ golf courses. Evan Mecham, thankfully no longer with us.

          • Rayne says:

            Yeah, and Meacham was impeached in 1988. Which means the GOP has only become more open and less cryptic about its “Lie back and enjoy the rape” policy over the last 34 years.

            What an utter embarrassment to this country.

  2. obsequious says:

    Ectopic pregnancies are not uncommon, and they’re universally life-threatening unless removed. Often, the baby is not alive anyway since they present as ruptured. They never go past a few weeks from conception due to the lack of endometrium in the salpinx.

    That’s just my medical expertise fwiw.

    • gmoke says:

      The statistics I’ve found are that ectopic pregnancies are about 1-2% of all pregnancies and about 30% of pregancies miscarry. Ectopic pregnancies account for between 2-3% of deaths during pregancy too.

      The Pregnancy-Related Mortality Impact of a Total Abortion Ban in the United States: A Research Note on Increased Deaths Due to Remaining Pregnant

      ”I find that in the first year of such a ban, estimated pregnancy-related deaths would increase from 675 to 724 (49 additional deaths, representing a 7% increase), and in subsequent years to 815 (140 additional deaths, for a 21% increase). Non-Hispanic Black people would experience the greatest increase in deaths (a 33% increase in subsequent years). Estimated pregnancy-related deaths would increase for all races and ethnicities examined. Overall, denying all wanted induced abortions in the United States would increase pregnancy-related mortality substantially, even if the rate of unsafe abortion did not increase.”

      And USAmerica is #1 (USA! USA! USA!) among OECD nations in pregnancy-related mortality rates. Once more, American exceptionalism strikes again.

      PS: I have absolutely no medical expertise whatsoever so I could be wrong.

      • Rayne says:

        You realize in the age of COVID those maternal mortality figures will be seen as mere blips. COVID’s mortality rate, increased by GOP-encouraged anti-mask/anti-vaxx behavior, will be used as benchmark to rationalize these deaths.

    • Molly Pitcher says:

      My daughter lives in Nashville. Last June she had an ectopic pregnancy and almost died. IF it happened this year, or if she lived in Missouri, she would be dead.

      She is having a boy sometime in the next 10 days, mercifully. But I am really struggling with the insanity of what the extremist, so called Christians, are doing to our country. I say this as a major holiday Episcopalian, so please don’t write me off as anti-religion.

      Somehow we have to save this country from the misguided religious rapture that has obsessed a frightening percentage of people in Washington, their financial backers and the voters they have led down the garden path.

      • coral says:

        Thank you for this personal story. For some of us, this moment isn’t theoretical or political, it is deeply personal and terrifying.

    • Anathema Device says:

      “the baby is not alive anyway”

      There is no fucking ‘baby’ in this scenario. There’s a clump of cells killing the host.

      Calling it a ‘baby’ is forced birther language.

        • obsequious says:

          Legally or biologically?

          If you want to get technical and go by gestational age, you can have 30 week old babies, 35 week old babies, and 41 week old babies. The biological gestational age is a better determinant than “birth”.

          • Anathema Device says:

            Tell me, oh great antenatal expert – do you know how far along are most women when an ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed?

            I’ll tell you – four to eight weeks.

            I guarantee you there are no babies in anyone’s body at eight weeks of pregnancy. All you have is a fertilised egg and a few cells around it. It’s a blob, barely distinguishable from what is lost in menstruation.

            You pushing the ‘baby’ line shows the depth of your ignorance and your total subscription to the forced birther line. Your views on this topic are utterly worthless.

            • Rayne says:

              Thanks for that. In hindsight I failed moderating this because I didn’t kick ‘obsequious’ when they first used the label ‘baby’ for a completely unviable pregnancy. That clump of cells never becomes a fetus in most cases let alone a viable neonate.

  3. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Gilding the lily, the Democratic Party-led Senate apparently started working on this bill last Thursday – in anticipation of public protests and BEFORE any of them had occurred near Justices homes. Will it work next to protect Senators threatened by chalk drawings on public pavements?

    Nice to know Sen. Coons (D-Bankers’ Paradise) and Sen. Cornyn (R-Power’s Out in Texas) have their priorities straight.

    • Rayne says:

      Just ridiculous.

      ADDER 11:31 am 12-MAY-2022: A new troll tried replying to this and a couple other comments/posts. We see you — now you see our trash bin. Beat it and find something constructive to do with your time, like maybe read the First Amendment.

  4. PeterL says:

    May I just say ARGHHHH! Where is the Democratic leadership around protecting health clinics from protesters? Didn’t Chief Justice Roberts minimize/eliminate the safety zone for those seeking care – just to protect the free speech rights of protesters? WTF. Sadly, the House is likely to fall in line too. With daily revelations about just how far the republicans are willing to go in rolling back the last 60-70 years, THIS is the best they can do? ARGHHH!

    • bmaz says:

      Yes, it is the best the Dems have. Why do you think I have been whining about how completely feckless Pelosi and Schumer are for years? They are complete shit. Everybody around them in leadership is also a fossil or feckless. It is pathetic.

      • PieIsDamnGood says:

        Democratic leadership entered a defensive crouch in 1996 and haven’t been able to get up since.

      • Marinela says:

        There are so many brilliant people in the US that are not running for office and they should. bmaz I think you would make a great speaker of the house.

        • Rayne says:

          BWAHAHHAHAHAH ~guffaw-sputter-hackcough~ I’m picturing bmaz trying to corral all the House Dems into voting the same way.

        • bmaz says:

          Lol, will never be a politician and could not get elected as the proverbial dog catcher if I tried. And that is fine. I don’t want any elected office and nobody wants me in any of said jobs.

    • Obansgirl says:

      Good point.

      Today’s nyt has opinion piece from catholic forced birther. Doesn’t mention the word woman once in HIS piece. So far 3000 plus comments are all spot on. As long time (5 decades) womens rights activist, I can’t express how distressing things are right now.

  5. Ed Walker says:

    Here’s an idea. Let’s picket at Evangelical Mega-Churches. I bet our side has the skills to write songs set to favorite hymns, like, Just As I Am, or Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the pill or something we can set to Gregorian Chant.

    Signs like Keep Your Death Panel Politicians Out Of My Medical Decisions. 13% Of All Abortions Are By Evangelical Women Whether Their Husbands Know It Or Not. Pictures of those repulsive sidewalk screamers with their little kids would be a helpful touch.

    We need serious Act Up in your face protests. We aren’t going to get it from the geriatric Dems and their sclerotic consultants. We will have to rely on the youngs and look for future leaders among those who step up.

    • Frank Anon says:

      Count me in. I would expect the response from the exiting parishioners would be more Westboro Baptist or Harry Callahan than Jesus Christ however

  6. Anathema Device says:

    This is how democracy and fertile people die.

    Ban any method of controlling your own body. Ban any method of protesting it. Make trying to do either a felony and remove the right to vote from those convicted. Force people to have kids they don’t want, keeping them poor, out of the workforce, out of education, and away from the reins of power.

    Rig the courts so no challenges to evil laws can ever succeed.

    Gerrymander the voting system. Rig the courts so the gerrymanders can never be challenged.

    Keep pumping dark money into elections so only the rich and connected and ‘conforming’ can win. Make sure all media is owned by conforming companies so no alternative views ever reach the masses.

    America is already there. Britain is 80% there. And Australia is 70% there.

    I don’t see a way forward any more, since those in power and supposedly on our side, won’t fight. As if they will do better than the lower orders when the right are fully in control of every single institution.

    • Thomas says:

      There is a recording of the last opposition speech made by a liberal politician just before the Nazis arrested enough members of the Reichstag to win the vote on the Enabling Act.
      I’m thinking about that now.

  7. Old Antarctic Explorer says:

    Regarding Ms. Parrish’s tweet above and the discussion that follows, is there anything in the law that would make the male responsible also? She didn’t do anything proactive. She had a miscarriage. There are two conditions prior to that event called Embryo Loss (from 0 to 9 weeks) and Fetal Resorption (from 9 weeks thereafter-don’t know when a cutoff would occur for this condition, other than Miscarriage). All of those events would be grounds for prosecution under the Republican anti-abortion laws passed or being passed. But the condition of having a fetus requires a male to be involved normally so wouldn’t the male also be prosecutable? Just asking. IANAL so I have no idea what other grounds could be brought up; it’s just logical from my point of view that if it takes two to tango then there should be two prosecutions, not just one.

    • Rayne says:

      The laws aren’t about pregnancy. They’re about controlling women’s bodies. That’s why men’s contributions to the pregnancies in question are never considered.

      Also the overwhelming majority of lawmakers writing and submitting and passing these bills are men. They’re not going to regulate their own bodies or behavior.

      • Old Antarctic Explorer says:

        But wouldn’t it be a defense for the female? What about my partner in crime?

        • Rayne says:

          When has it ever been a defense in the past? Christ, we can’t even get rape charges to stick let alone get the appropriate level of punishment, like that wretched college swimmer Brock Turner who got 6 months for “falling into a girl’s vagina,” oh, oops.

          • Paulka says:

            One very small ray of sunshine will be the men complaining about having to pay child support for the forced births

            The men’s rights advocates are already whining about it

      • Peterr says:

        It’s worse than that, Rayne. In Alito’s writing as an appellate court judge on the panel hearing Casey, he brings up the men’s contributions to the pregnancies, in ways that are disturbing for women’s rights:

        Since Section 3209 has not been proven to impose an undue burden, it must serve a “legitimate” (but not necessarily a “compelling”) state interest. The majority acknowledges that this provision serves a “legitimate” interest, namely, the state’s interest in furthering the husband’s interest in the fetus. See majority opin. at 715, 716. I agree with this conclusion, and I do not think that this point requires extended discussion.

        The Supreme Court has held that a man has a fundamental interest in preserving his ability to father a child. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). The Court’s opinions also seem to establish that a husband who is willing to participate in raising a child has a fundamental interest in the child’s welfare. Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 123, 109 S.Ct. 2333, 2342, 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 98 S.Ct. 549, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978); Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 99 S.Ct. 1760, 60 L.Ed.2d 297 (1969); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). It follows that a husband has a “legitimate” interest in the welfare of a fetus he has conceived with his wife.

        To be sure, the Supreme Court held in Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 67-72, 96 S.Ct. 2831, 2840-43, 49 L.Ed.2d 788 (1976), that a potential father may not be given the legal authority to veto an abortion, and thus the Court apparently held that the potential father’s interest was not “compelling.” But the Court did not question the legitimacy of this interest. On the contrary, the Court wrote (id. at 69, 96 S.Ct. at 2841 (emphasis added)): “We are not unaware of the deep and proper concern and interest that a devoted and protective husband has in his wife’s pregnancy and in the growth and development of the fetus she is carrying.” See also id. at 93, 96 S.Ct. at 2852 (White, J., dissenting) (“A father’s interest in having a child–perhaps his only child–may be unmatched by any other interest in his life”). Since a “deep and proper … interest” appears indistinguishable from a “legitimate” interest, it seems clear that a husband has a “legitimate” interest in the fate of the fetus.

        This interest may be legitimately furthered by state legislation. “[S]tatutory regulation of domestic relations [is] an area *726 that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 404, 95 S.Ct. 553, 560, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975). See also Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1935, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977); Scheinberg v. Smith, 659 F.2d 476, 483-94 (5th Cir.1981). Accordingly, Pennsylvania has a legitimate interest in furthering the husband’s interest in the fate of the fetus, as the majority in this case acknowledges.

        I see state and federal legislators taking up the task of strengthening the father’s interests here, as Alito directs, even to the point of seeking to get PP of MO v Danforth overturned so that men could veto an abortion.

        • Rayne says:

          Men have a property interest in a fetus, in other words. If they have an interest, they’re carrying it when it’s not viable. They don’t have an interest if it’s not viable and completely dependent on another human being’s sacrifice.

          What Alito hasn’t expressed clearly is that he believes men have property interests in the woman carrying the fetus as well. She is subordinate to the sperm donor’s property rights.

          Fuck Alito. Because his argument means that men can have property interests over other human beings, period.

  8. jaango1 says:

    With the destruction of Roe V. Wade, white women have yet to recognize that the ongoing status for “Second Class Citizenship” is today’s elemental Regime of Hate.

    As a Chicano, I find myself having to contend with “citizenship” issues on a daily basis, and subsequently, consider this posting a Rant.

    For those among us and whom are “racial and ethnics”, the notion of the Demographics among Chicanos, easily recognize that America’s “white guys” are not only confused, but worse, intellectually lazy when it comes to public policy. To wit, a few years ago, I debated a recognized cabal of lawyers. And the subject was the following with regard to public policy:

    “Governments–federal, state, county and municipal, are prohibited from interfering in any woman’s reproductive rights’ decision-making.”

    Needless to say, but I will, it was a waste of my time.

  9. bmaz says:

    I am actually okay with this, the Supreme Court Police have been beyond thin forever. And not because I give a shit about a few peaceful protestors in front of Alito’s and Coney Barrett’s cribs, but because I am terribly worried about Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Trumpers will be coming for her and Sotomayor. So, okay. They deserve details as much or more than Mitch and McCarthy.

    • Rayne says:

      Then the Senate Democrats should have done some goddamned messaging about this angle instead of allowing it to look like they wanted to get the Fascist Five’s backs.

      Just so fucking kackhanded the way they handled this. How are we supposed to encourage voter turn out for more Senate Democrats when so many of the 45 we have are such morons, kissing up to the GOP senate thanks to their hostage mentality while ignoring the Democratic Party base?

        • Rayne says:

          Sounds familiar, think I’ve heard this refrain before.

          At some point the rank-and-file Dems as well as state party leadership need to take responsibility for the lack of turnover.

        • coral says:

          Who in the Senate / House now would be up to the job? I’d especially like to see someone replace Schumer, who has been dreadful.

    • Peterr says:

      The name John Roll comes to mind . . . right bmaz?

      I knew John, and he was one of the finest men, not to mention judges, I have ever met. Kind, generous, helpful and compassionate. Tough as a judge, but fair, and extremely smart. Just a good man and great judge. The very kind of traits that led him to drop by Gabby’s local Congress on the Corner event three years ago today. Roll had been in downtown Tucson at Saturday Mass, knew of Gabby’s event and decided to stop in on the way home and say hi.

      Roll never made it home. While Gabby was injured, Roll was killed.

      I, too, thought of KBJ in this context. Lots of judges get threats, but she will be a real target for some of the most unhinged folks on the right. All the “You know she protects pedophiles, right?” stuff from the GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee was painting a target on her, as surely as the Pizzagate pedophile accusations led to folks showing up at the pizza parlor with guns.

      • bmaz says:

        And by the way, thanks for remembering John. Still hurts. Roll did not really need a security detail, but KBJ is really going to need one.

  10. civil says:

    I’m strongly pro-choice, and I’m ticked off about things that Congress *hasn’t* done, but I don’t have a problem with S.4160, the bill that the Senate passed, and I don’t see how it has any impact on peaceful protest near the Justices’ homes. 40 U.S. Code § 6121 already gives the Marshals and the Supreme Court Police authority to protect the Justices, and all S.4160 does is extend that protection to immediate members of the Justices’ families if a Marshal judges that they need protection. Judges get threats, and they and family members can be harmed by nuts. In 2020, Judge Esther Salas’s son was murdered and her husband shot at their home by a bigot who had appeared in her court. Congress should act on S. 2340, a bipartisan bill to improve security for judges and their families.

    The bill that regulates protest outside judges’ homes is 18 U.S. Code § 1507, which was passed decades ago and addresses “Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence.” They have to prove that intent — rather than, say, just peacefully expressing one’s anger or raising the protest issues with the general public.

    For anyone in the DC area, there is a large protest planned for Saturday with a march from the Washington Monument to the Supreme Court building: That page links to a site that also lists satellite events.

  11. grennan says:

    Politically, the Dems may have been smart to hop onto the bill…the last thing they, we, need is ANYTHING that could make those five justices be perceived as victims. Or martyrs.

    Yes, it’s maddening to compare this to what’s been allowed in front of clinics, but protecting the justices has got to look nonpartisan (and helps keep Justice Jackson safe as well).

    The draft opinion is full of chilling ideas. Charlie Pierce has pointed to the section about the adoption market and the terrifying phrase “supply of U.S. infants” [i.e., the current shortage of, for adoption…]

    It’s also sad that the country has not been able to discuss whether it’s a good idea to have six or seven justices of the same religion, no matter what it is.

    Roger Taney was the first Catholic appointed to the Supreme Ct., in 1836. It was almost 60 years before the court got a second. We don’t know how that could or does weigh on Justice Roberts (the weight of history, Catholic Chief Justices, Dred Scott at one end and this at another.)

  12. Rugger9 says:

    I saw in the print news this morning about how some anti-abortion groups have been targets of vandalism (two Roman Catholic churches in CO, plus Molotov cocktail attacks in Salem OR and Madison WI). Violence doesn’t solve anything, but I would also note that acts like these are totally out of character for the protestors up to this point. I have to wonder following the examples of how many off-duty police officers were busted in the BLM riots acting as agents provocateurs that we aren’t seeing the same kind of thing here because that kind of stuff fits the RWNJ MO perfectly. We’ll see what the investigation turns up.

    It also may be a reason (though misguided and not well communicated) why Schumer et al is doing what they are doing here, in order to make it crystal clear who the thugs really are. Long ago in 1914, the French government ordered a 10 km withdrawal along the border with the German Empire around 01 AUG to make it clear that Wilhelm wanted the fight, as a price for Joffre to get mobilization.

    • Rayne says:

      My gut tells me the vandalism attacks are by provocateurs and not anti-abortion groups in part because the locations are iffy.

      How do we fend off the provocateurs who are going to try to create their own Reichstag fire?

  13. Nigel Senna says:

    So, after all this bitching, can’t we agree that the best thing to do in the next 181 days ( yes, that’s all the time that’s left ) is register, help get others get registered, volunteer at your local Dem Org. Donate what you can and vote?

    • Rayne says:

      Yes, the problem could be resolved by electing more Democrats to the Senate, retaining a House majority, and reducing GOP numbers in every state legislature.

      It would be nice if the Senate Democrats found somebody to manage their brand and messaging, though, because Jesus Christ, they make it difficult to stay focused on winning.

  14. silcominc says:

    Rayne, their (the GOP) vision for America – no more immigration – let poor whites and blacks have more babies to run their factories and they will use the powers of the state to ensure that anyone who looks for contraception is being surveilled. It is beyond scary – and Muslims and Jews – you can pray quietly but don’t get in the way of our Christian ways. It is not just the end of democracy – it is the end of all our freedoms.

  15. kreativekkj says:

    How can there be a law that would make a normal bodily function illegal? I think the about one-fourth of women experience a miscarriage at some point during their fertile years.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      In effect, the movement is trying to criminalize women, or at least remove their agency and self-determination and return them to the status of a piece of property.

      There is substantial literature on the parallel with the treatment of slave women. As an asset, one of their prime functions was to increase the wealth of their masters by having sexual relations (consent was irrelevant), often with them or other white men, and having their babies, thereby increasing their master’s wealth.

  16. OldTulsaDude says:

    Although I sympathize with the emotions, and I, too, wish there was more that could be done, I remind myself that no one seriously thought the Senate would flip in 2020, that it did is something of a miracle, and the reason was to thwart the corruptive forces of the Trump administration.

    The Republicans cannot set the agenda in the Senate. Trump is not president. That’s all we should expect this time around, and if we want more we must elect more Democrats.

    • Rayne says:

      Dude. The Senate Democrats could do a fucking better job messaging. They could do a fucking better job debating the need for this kind of legislation which was utterly unnecessary since there’s already law on the books limiting protests in front of judiciary AND local ordinances can and should address the rest.

      This has nothing to do with the insufficiency of Senate Democrats, but the effectiveness of the existing ones.

        • Rayne says:

          They absolutely won’t do better if somebody doesn’t tell them to stop doing performative bullshit which damages credibility with their base.

  17. OldTulsaDude says:

    There is what is real, and there is what is right. We have to deal with what is real. One of the realities is that Joe Manchin has to appeal to a bunch of conservatives to keep his seat.
    I agree that the Democrats need a new JFK or Bobby who can energize voters, but I don’t see anyone who fits that description.

    • Rayne says:

      Again, this post was NOT about the hostage-taking by a 50/50 Senate enabled by DINOs Sinema and Manchin.


    • Savage Librarian says:

      Rayne, I would be grateful if you could delete my entry above. There is nothing wrong with the song. But it is an ill timed choice based on sad news in the music industry that I just became aware of. Thanks for your time and help, if possible.

  18. harpie says:

    Remember when we spent a lot of time talking about
    the meatpacking industry and COVID? ie, Marcy here:

    April 28, 2020

    Also APRIL 28, 2020:
    10:03 AM · May 12, 2022

    NEW: Top meatpackers Tyson and Smithfield drafted the executive order eventually signed by Trump in April 2020 to keep meat plants running during the early months of the Covid pandemic, found a House report out today. My story TK. Read the report here: [link]

    The companies sent the draft to USDA officials and corresponded extensively with the White House, USDA, and other administration officials before the order was finalized and signed on April 28, the report found. [THREAD]

Comments are closed.