The fringe on the right is going after contraception. And becoming less of a fringe by the day.

the question is, what are you willing to do to fight back? do you value abortion more than civility and decorum? (which are long dead btw) do you value abortion more than being nice to republicans? even the “moderates” who vote the same but are less blunt in public?

Reviews of Dobbs revealed that principle is dead in SCOTUS, that the Federalist Society judges are more interested in autocratic despotism to please their plutocratic masters.

Every lost of life traced back to an ideological court ruling further delegitimizes the courts in the eyes of the public. This is not just a matter isolated to women denied medical care, though the loss of abortion rights raised a lot more awareness, than the civil rights that have been getting carved and stripped since the PATRIOT act in 2001. In the 2020s the forth- and fifth-amendment protections we once took for granted are conspicuously absent whenever we have to engage law enforcement.

The question is, what happens next? We’re not going to go quietly into Gilead. It’s never appropriate to consider violence until the hour it is. Is it a matter of deciding which incident is our Mahsa Amini? Do we organize sabotage teams and consider targets before that hour?

Peaceful protests are already treated by law enforcement as riots, and tend to be ineffective in moving policy forward. We, the public, are already regarded as terrorists, as enemies of state. While I don’t have answers, I am curious at what point to we acknowledge peaceful engagement with the establishment has been neutered and exhausted.

With the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 we already know they’re not waiting for the public to strike first.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Less than a week into the new year, a federal appeals court has already issued a pernicious new decision in a Texas abortion case, setting the stage for the far-right’s escalating assault on reproductive rights in 2024.

Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that Texas hospitals are not obligated to perform abortions to stabilize a pregnant patient facing a medical emergency.

Like every attack on reproductive liberties and bodily autonomy, the challenge to EMTALA’s reach in these cases is not only a further threat to the lives of women and other pregnant people: It is also part of an ongoing process by which Republicans, aided by the judiciary, are able to withdraw the already limited provision of essential health care.

The judges — two appointed by Donald Trump and one by George W. Bush — ruled that should EMTALA conflict with Texas’s severe abortion restrictions, hospitals must follow the state law or face its extreme penalties.

Chris Geidner rightly noted in his LawDork newsletter that the panel’s reasoning involved “sloppy legal work at best, intentionally misleading at worst.” Still, the specious ruling sets up a Supreme Court challenge as to whether emergency abortions that stabilize a pregnant patient fall under federally required emergency health care — so degraded is the legal battle over reproductive rights that lifesaving medicine is the terrain.

This is why the fight for true reproductive justice has always been predicated on winning free, robust health care for all, while centrist Democrats have pushed only for an austere baseline of protection and provision.

The original article contains 865 words, the summary contains 257 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

I keep asking myself how long it will be before there just aren’t any doctors willing to work in women’s healthcare. Because they are potentially getting threats from two directions: do they save a woman’s life and bring down the wrath of the law, or do they let her die slowly and painfully, bringing down a potentially much more immediate and messy wrath from distraught husbands and other family members?

I doubt many people are “PrO LiFe” when someone important to them is dying.

This would have been new information 5 years ago.