The topic is a divided country.

Off topic comments, including trolling, are subject to deletion.

Three comments in and I think the question has been answered in the affirmative. 

The USA was and is and will be divided and that is a part of our freedom.  The hard part is, we have to put up with each other enough to have a good life.

My second point is overpopulation is making all divisions and problems worse.

Approximately 20% of the country is hopelessly divided.    Roughly 10% on each side.    These are the true believers.  The fundamentalists.   They are “my way or the highway” thinkers.   No flexibility or respect for other opinions.

None.

[Deleted]

Lol ....thanks for more empirical evidence which proves my point.

Much appreciated 

Spending one's days online 'bantering' with 20 to 40 partisans will certainly make it seem so. Although the internet has given voice to one and all it is the herd that brays the loudest and for what, not their individual freedoms but for those of the herd leaders who really don't give a shyte other than to drum up the cacophony. Squeaky wheels get the oil and all that sort of thing. More oinking please! /s

In the end it is actually each side that trolls its own.

Are the 5 ultra conservative Supreme Court justices cognizant of the fact that their decision to overturn Roe v Wade will split the country in half?  How could they not be? And yet they went forward with it. 

First we don't know that they "went forward with it".  I think the leak was from a Pro-Life Clerk that was worried that one or more of these five were wavering and wanted to make it politically difficult to vote to uphold Roe.  Second, decisions shouldn't be made on the basis of how it will be received. We got some of the worst SCOTUS decisions that were popular or at least not controversial at the time:

• An eight to one court upheld forced sterilization in Buck v. Bell.
• The Court found interment of Japanese-Americans as legal.
• Plessy v. Ferguson made separate but equal allowing segregation and Jim Crow.  

Trump and MAGA -ism have divided this country gravely.

The divides in the country predate Trump and helped him to win and Clinton to lose.  We aren't hopeless as officials both red and blue states conducted a fair election in 2020 and then prevented a coup.   State attorneys general in a cross section of states blocked Trump on an large number of issues. Call it the 'Deep State' or responsible government but many Trump initiatives were stopped.

What would have led to helplessness is all political power at the federal level.  I see state government with mixed power between Dem and Repubs passing laws, issuing budgets without incurring debt and functioning with the drama of Washington.  

rump and MAGA -ism have divided this country gravely. 

That's the progressive con in a nutshell. They  want to "fundamentally transform" America and anyone who doesn't parrot their ideology is dividing America. 

Federalism is the genius of the country. Progressives hate it because it makes it more difficult to control everyone.  California should be California and Texas should be Texas. The problem is California wants Texas to be California. 

The idea that abortion could be a grave evil (according to the right) and yet still left to the states to decide is the real con job. 

Leaving it up to the states is actually a validation of the concept of "choice", yet the right, the so called party of individual rights , is not willing to give individuals the right to choose. 

eaving it up to the states is actually a validation of the concept of "choice"

Absolutely.  That's the core principle of a democratic form of government.  People choose the laws they want to be governed by. 

You want abortion to be decided by an unelected group of mainly men. 

Alito disagrees. 

Leaving it up to the states is actually a validation of the concept of "choice",

It may be a validation of what the Constitution say and doesn't.  

Justice Ginsburg, criticized Roe V. Wade both before joining SCOTUS and after.  She believed that an incremental state by state was both better and legally sound.  She also argued that a ruling based on the Equal Protection Clause and one less sweeping was proper and would have avoided the big target that the Roe ruling became. 

Several months before her SCOTUS confirmation, she said, “Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable. The most prominent example in recent decades is Roe v. Wade,” 

You want abortion to be decided by an unelected group of mainly men. 

I dont want abortion to be "decided" by anyone. It is a private decision by the woman and her closest advisers. 

The real issue is not so much about abortion but abortion after viability

There would be less controversy if that were actually true.

Bull! Late term abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother or sometimes in cases of incest where the pregnancies are kept a secret until near the end of term...

Late term abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother or sometimes in cases of incest where the pregnancies are kept a secret until near the end of term...

Not in Alaska, Oregon, New Mexico, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Delaware, Colorado or DC.

I truly doubt that Justice Ginsburg was aware when she made those statements and held those beliefs of the extent that the Republican State governments were going to go to enslave women, especially to the extent of enabling vigilante bounty-hunters.  Return of the 19th century. 

"You want abortion to be decided by an unelected group of mainly men."

No, those unelected group of mainly men are the ones who want to be the ones who decide.

"Bull! Late term abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother or sometimes in cases of incest where the pregnancies are kept a secret until near the end of term..."

or if the fetus is not viable.  

Some repeat that lie all the time - that women have abortions up to delivery.  It's ridiculous.  

They  want to "fundamentally transform" America and anyone who doesn't parrot their ideology is dividing America. 

Fortunately most Americans aren’t that stupid and won’t fall for that nonsense.

Federalism is the genius of the country.

Completely agree,  Without it, we would be more divided. I think part of our current problem is to much power and money at the federal level.  Problems should be addressed and handled at the lowest practical level.  States can try different approaches and solutions can be better tailored to meet more local environments.

You sound like the paint salesman who proclaims one coat covers all.

You sound like the paint salesman who proclaims one coat covers all.

One coat?  More like 20,000 cities, 3,000 counties, 50 states and one federal government.

That's not what I was getting at.

Sorry, I had keyed on federalism.

If you use the proper paint it will.

He likes to pretend to know what we're thinking

What is the nature of the division?  What is causing the division?

The author is pointing to a SCOTUS decision concerning Roe v. Wade as escalating divisions in the US.  The original Roe v. Wade decision was made 50 years ago.  And the Roe v. Wade decision actually addressed a highly technical point with limited scope.  The United States has had five decades to address the issue of abortion through a democratic process that addresses the shortcomings of a court imposed decree.

The Roe v. Wade example suggests that the divisions we're experiencing may be due to a failure of democracy.  Roe v. Wade is actually an autocratic imposition of abortion onto the country.  SCOTUS decided, imposed, and enforced.  The people of the United States did not have a democratic say in the issue of abortion.

Democracy in the United States requires either a direct vote by the people - or - decision making by elected officials representing the people and accountable to the people.  SCOTUS (and courts in general) is strictly an autocratic institution.  Judges are not appointed to represent the people and are not accountable to the people.  The people have not had a democratic say in the issue of abortion.

In the example of Roe v. Wade, it appears that the division involves a conflict between autocratic government (the courts) and democratic government (the voters and legislatures).  

The people have not had a democratic say in the issue of abortion.

Did the people have a democratic say on the issue of slavery?

Did the people have a democratic say on the issue of slavery?

Yes.  The issue of slavery was addressed through legislation by representative government.  Slavery was not autocratically imposed onto the United States by the courts.  The abolition of slavery was accomplished by a democratic process involving legislation.  (Constitutional amendments are legislated and approved or rejected by elected representatives of the people.  The courts are not involved in amending the Constitution.)

The abolition of slavery was accomplished by a democratic process involving legislation.

Will the states ever be granted the right to bring back slavery?

If they are, they will most likely again appear in democratic run states.

Old times are hard to break.

Will the states ever be granted the right to bring back slavery?

Is there a movement to eliminate the 14th Amendment?  

Will the states ever be granted the right to bring back slavery?

If you believe in a "living constitution" it is  of course possible that five justices could decide the Constitution evolved and it's legal again. 

Otherwise, its only possible with a Constitutional Amendment. 

Will the states ever be granted the right to bring back slavery?

No.  That's because the Constitution has been amended through a democratic process.  The Constitutional amendment means the courts cannot autocratically allow slavery.

Slavery was not legal everywhere in the United States at any time during the history of the United States.  The courts could not autocratically overturn legislated prohibitions on slavery.  The courts could not autocratically decree that owning slaves was a fundamental right because the issue of slavery had already been addressed through a democratic process.

Is there a movement to eliminate the 14th Amendment?  

Where there's a will there's a way to eliminate just about anything including the right to bodily autonomy of anyone.

Free speech has been under attack for years.  People have been banned from internet forums for just having differing beliefs than what is acceptable to the political powers in the United States.  What happens when we can't express differing religious beliefs?

I remember Phil Donahue being taken off television because he dared to question why the US should invade Iraq. 

Helen Thomas was a liberal reporter who covered the White House for decades beginning with Kennedy presidency and ending with Obama's first term.  

Helen Thomas - Wikipedia On July 1, 2009, Thomas commented on the Obama administration's handling of the press, "we have had some control but not this control. I mean I'm amazed, I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and you have controlled...". ^{[43] [44] [45]}  She also said that not even  Richard Nixon  tried to control the press as much as President Obama. ^[46]

And today, we have President Biden appointing an official "Disinformation Board" to decide on who is allowed to say what.  

How can anyone be in favor of what President Biden is doing to suppress freely expressing their own thoughts?  

Is the democratic solution to division the act of making it illegal?  Where are the Democrats and Republicans speaking out against this power play?  Why aren't they divided when it comes to creating and paying government operative to suppress free speech?

Our government reps don't seem divided at all when it comes to protecting their own power and wealth, do they?

Homeland Security's "Disinformation Board" is Even More Pernicious Than it Seems (substack.com)

Homeland Security's "Disinformation Board" is Even More Pernicious Than it Seems

The power to decree what is "disinformation" now determines what can and cannot be discussed on the internet. It is now in the hands of trained disinformation agents of the U.S. Security State.

Indeed, the concept of “anti-disinformation expert” is itself completely fraudulent. This is not a real expertise but rather a concocted title bestowed on propagandists to make them appear more scholarly and apolitical than they are. But the function of this well-funded industry is the same as the one served by the pre-election letter from “dozens of former intelligence officials": to discredit dissent and justify its censorship by infusing its condemnation with the pretense of institutional authority. The targeted views are not merely  wrong ; they have been adjudged by  official, credentialed   experts   to constitute "disinformation.”

Free speech has been under attack for years. 

When hasn't it been attacked?

I remember Phil Donahue being taken off television because he dared to question why the US should invade Iraq. 

I remember that too I was a Donahue fan but MSNBC was to focused on the ratings.  I preferred Bill Moyer for his viewpoint on the tragedy we were rushing to make.  I also always enjoyed listening to Helen Thomas.  

How can anyone be in favor of what President Biden is doing to suppress freely expressing their own thoughts?

I'm not for the Imperial Presidency.  

Our government reps don't seem divided at all when it comes to protecting their own power and wealth, do they?

You got that right!

Slavery was not legal everywhere in the United States at any time during the history of the United States.  The courts could not autocratically overturn legislated prohibitions on slavery.  The courts could not autocratically decree that owning slaves was a fundamental right because the issue of slavery had already been addressed through a democratic process.

Abortion was legal everywhere in the United States long before it was made illegal (in part) to restrict our economic opportunities to work outside the home and have a hope of supporting ourselves and our children if a marriage failed or our spouse died.  

There are no reasons that women's access to any form of birth control should be limited because of someone else's emotional issues.

Women should not be subject to be governed as broodstock by anyone for any reason.

For women, access to all forms of birth control is vital to our emotional, physical and economic well-being.  

Women's rights should not be allowed to be used for political power plays.   The people who believe our rights to bodily autonomy should be restricted are equally in favor of slavery.  

The History of Abortion Law in the United States - Our Bodies Ourselves

In the United States, abortion was originally   legal before quickening , the point at which a pregnant person feels the fetus move, generally at around four or five months. Abortion was widely practiced, primarily done using herbs with the assistance of midwives and other female healers. Some of the earliest anti-abortion laws were poison control measures, passed in the mid-19th century in response to the proliferation of chemical abortifacents that became popular at the time. But by the late 19th century, most states had laws banning abortion except to save the life or health of a pregnant person.

The move to ban abortions occurred for a variety reasons. First, it was part of a backlash against the growing women’s rights movement, which advocated for “voluntary motherhood.” Even though the movement did not support abortion, the demand for birth control was a threat to male dominance. Restricting abortion was part of   an effort to control women   and confine them to a traditional childbearing role. It was also a way for men in the newly-established medical profession to wrest control over the highly-profitable business of childbirth from midwives, whom they condemned for performing abortions.

The attacks on abortion access were   rooted in racism and white supremacy . White doctors often targeted Black midwives for particular condemnation. People seeking to criminalize abortion were also motivated by increased immigration, specifically of Catholic immigrants, and the declining birthrate among U.S.-born white Protestant women in the late 1800s. The U.S. government and the eugenics movement were concerned about “race suicide” and wanted white Protestant women to have more children.

In the late 1960s, the  Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion  — a network of concerned pastors and rabbis — set up referral services to help women find safer illegal abortions.

While many were thrilled and relieved that abortion was now legal across the country, others were furious and turned to state legislatures to restrict access. From 1973 until 1992, restrictions on abortion were passed in almost every state. Abortion rights activists appealed, but the Supreme Court rejected hearing most of these cases. However, during this time period the Court handed down two major rulings that limited young and poor women’s access to abortion.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, since the 1973  Roe v. Wade  decision, states have passed  more than 1000  abortion restrictions.  More than a third of them  were enacted between 2011 -2019, accelerating after the election of President Barack Obama

Where there's a will there's a way to eliminate just about anything including the right to bodily autonomy of anyone.

Where does intervention in suicide fit into that argument?

bortion was legal everywhere in the United States long before it was made illegal (in part) to restrict our economic opportunities to work outside the home and have a hope of supporting ourselves and our children if a marriage failed or our spouse died.  

Lol.

Abortion was legal everywhere in the United States long before it was made illegal (in part) to restrict our economic opportunities to work outside the home and have a hope of supporting ourselves and our children if a marriage failed or our spouse died.

That's not true.  In 1910 abortion was illegal nationwide.  Planned Parenthood: Historical Abortion Law Timeline: 1850 to Today

There are no reasons that women's access to any form of birth control should be limited because of someone else's emotional issues.

Abortion does not prevent pregnancies.  There are many, many methods available to prevent pregnancies.  There are medical procedures, devices, and drugs available to prevent pregnancies.  And controlling behavior also prevents pregnancies.  Abortion is not a substitute for women failing to exercise or being denied autonomy over their own bodies to prevent pregnancies.

Preventing pregnancies is a different issue than abortion.

That's not true.  In 1910 abortion was illegal nationwide. 

Cherry-picking?

Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions... During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. As a result, many women began to utilize illegal underground abortion services. plannedparenthoodaction

Where does intervention in suicide fit into that argument?

Until science comes up with a way to cure brain abnormalities that cause people to be suicidal, I don't believe it is humane to make people suffer because their families or societies fear their own deaths.  This is why I support assisted suicide for people who are desperate to end either their mental or physical torture.  The practice of starving the elderly to death is one of the horrors that I have witnessed with my loved ones.  I determined decades ago that the most loving thing I could do is to never put myself and my children through that.  I don't fear death any more than I fear sleep.  I am not a masochist and choose to avoid pain and suffering.  

People, who are committed to ending their life, usually do it effectively because they don't tell anyone and really don't want to live.  If they are somehow revived, they usually continue until they are successful.

Interventions only work if the person doesn't really want to end their existence.

Cherry-picking?

Definitely.

This is why I rarely engage for long with people who either can't or won't have an honest discussion about the facts of an issue.  

Preventing pregnancies is a different issue than abortion.

When other forms of birth controls fail, then abortion does prevent the unwanted pregnancy from causing further injury to the woman's life.

At the end of the day, controlling the consensual sexual lives of women is nothing more than slavery.  Slavery is illegal.

Cherry-picking?

You are claiming that Planned Parenthood is cherry picking?  The facts, as presented by Planned Parenthood, are that abortion was illegal nationwide in 1910.  Abortion has not always been legal in the United States.  And the prohibitions on abortion were put in place through a democratic process.  The courts did not autocratically decree that abortion was illegal (or legal).

You are claiming that Planned Parenthood is cherry picking? 

No, obviously.  Faux obtuseness is a crappy tactic.

Until science comes up with a way to cure brain abnormalities that cause people to be suicidal, I don't believe it is humane to make people suffer because their families or societies fear their own deaths. 

In the case of suicide, what appears to be a personal choice affecting an individual can and does cause harm to others; sometimes irreparable harm.  Do those who would be harmed have a right to intervene?

Do those who would be harmed have a right to intervene?

People, who have empathy, would rather mourn the loss of their loved one than make them suffer.

People, who take pleasure in the pain of others, are sadists.  Sadists are self-serving individuals who would mourn the loss of losing a person to torture.

So who is more likely to demand a "right" to prevent someone ending pain and suffering - the empath or the sadist?

Abortion does not prevent pregnancies.

No, but it solves the problem of unwanted pregnancy 

“The abolition of slavery was accomplished by a democratic process involving legislation.”

After a civil war, lest one forget. 

After a civil war, lest one forget. 

Exactly, are you ready to go to war?  Are we as divided as we were 160 years ago? 

“Exactly, are you ready to go to war?  Are we as divided as we were 160 years ago?”

I’m not.

But I’m also pretty sure my neighbor, friend, and classmate from the 70’s would shoot me down if he knew my political philosophies and he was called to arms by whatever, whomever, and whenever to stoke his itchy trigger finger. 

So yeah, we’re divided. 

"Are we as divided as we were 160 years ago?"

I think you are - not across geographical lines as in the civil war, but in political beliefs, and it pits neighbour against neighbour no matter where you are in the USA.   I've seen stories that at family celebrations everyone has to keep their mouths shut about politics or there will be a divisive fight that will tear families apart forever.  I never heard about restaurants banning people or asking them to leave because of a differing politics until the last few years.  What is scary,while the divide continues to deepen, is that so many people have guns. 

"How can anyone be in favor of what President Biden is doing to suppress freely expressing their own thoughts?"  

Oh brother.  There you go again.  It's always the Democrats who are the problem with you and Nerm and certain others.  

It's tiresome.  

Abortion is not, at bottom, a legal issue, it is a moral issue. Alito acknowledged this. 

bortion is not, at bottom, a legal issue, it is a moral issue. Alito acknowledged this.

Why would you think that helps your argument? 

We have people saying that Alito is righting a legal wrong.  That should not be the main consideration. The main consideration about abortion is not the legal one. 

Abortion is not, at bottom, a legal issue, it is a moral issue. Alito acknowledged this. 

Does that mean morality has greater authority than democracy?  

A child may or may not be an inconvenience for a woman.  A child may or may not be a burden for a woman.  A child may or may not interfere with the freedom of a woman.  But a child does not take away the rights of a woman.  What are the moral issues involved in abortion?

[Deleted]

The woman's rights are paramount

Abortion is not, at bottom, a legal issue, it is a moral issue.

For some people.  That is why they have to argue from an emotional standpoint on why they believe they have a moral duty to control the sex lives of women.  That is all they have.  There are no logical reasons why government should be involved in legislating the sex and reproductive lives of consenting adults.

Abortion, in the US, was not legislated in the 1600s, 1700s and majority of the 1800s.  The men, who wrote the founding documents of this country, did not concern themselves with legislating abortion. 

What has changed? 

It has nothing to with religion.  People were far more likely to be a member of a religious organization until the last few decades. The majority of women who have had abortions (since the 1600s) were religious, most likely Christian since that is the dominant religious sect in the US.   Even if the Bible was against abortion, the US is not governed by religious laws or we would have to kill people for working on Sunday in order to please Yahweh and keep his laws.

What has changed?

The vast majority of citizens of the US are intelligent enough to access and use birth control effectively enough to cause the US population to be shrinking instead of expanding.  This is causing great alarm to the men at the top of our capitalist system.  Their economic model requires a continual population growth and it is not happening in the US or any other industrialized nation.

This is NOT a moral issue.  It is an economic issue framed as a moral issue.  

This issue does highlight how united both both sides are how how to debate the issue.  Most of the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life talking points continue to be repeated along with whataboutisms.  I see very little discussion of Altio's words in the draft and the legal or not merits of his argument. It wouldn't surprise me if most here as well as the talking heads on TV have never read the draft.

see 11.2

Yes, I have read those 15 words as well as this 1st draft from early February.  I wonder how many drafts Alito has written since then and which other Justices have written them.  

It is quaint to see people suppose that issue can be approached from a simple perspective of "the law". Once this new "law" is in place it will be immediately broken by many women who need an abortion. Maybe its not a good place for the law to be then, eh? 

Once this new "law" is in place it will be immediately broken by many women who need an abortion.

Yes, it might be a good time to buy stock in Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro.

nce this new "law" is in place it will be immediately broken by many women who need an abortion.

Just like pretty much every other law? 

"Yes, it might be a good time to buy stock in Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro."

Or to invest in wire hanger manufacturers.

I see very little discussion of Altio's words in the draft and the legal or not merits of his argument.

By that you mean Alito's reliance on Matthew Hale the 17th Cent. English jurist and proponent of burning witches?

By that you mean Alito's reliance on Matthew Hale

I wonder how much he leans on Hale in his current draft.  He probably keeps RBG's words though.

I expect any references to Hale will be omitted. He opened a can of worms with that and to add insult to injury tossed in a can of Haggis soup. We will see in early July if there was method to his recipe of madness.

I expect any references to Hale will be omitted.

Agree.  

We will see in early July if there was method to his recipe of madness.

And if Roberts can get the scope defined more narrowly.  

Alito shot him in the foot most fouly and he will need to be nimble without grimacing.

I don't think so. I spent 2 hours this morning shoveling and hauling dirt for my dad, who I have said repeatedly is retardedly conservative, and we had great conversations, laughing, and generally enjoying each other companies (while I naturally did all the real work). My father and I could not be more apart politically (except on Ukraine) but when politics is not mentioned (or barely mentioned) we are best friends. 

I think a lot of it has to do with internet interaction vs personal reaction. I will fully admit that I am more hostile online than otherwise. Granted I have punched more than one motherfucker in my life, but generally I am a lot more chill IRL. Social media/the interaction has really just been awful for our species. 

I think if people would pay less attention to their phones, and more attention to digging/clearing ditches with their dad's, we would all be a lot better off. 

That’s because the threat of getting your ass beat is much greater IRL.    For everyone.

And we all know some folks on the internet are the biggest, baddest mofo’s in the valley ..... well okay ..... at least in their moms basement but you get the gist ....

Very true. I have kicked ass and had my ass kicked, and that is okay. Some people though... lol, you can tell the hardest thing they have ever hit is a pillow. 

you can tell the hardest thing they have ever hit

Or a Hostess Twinkie ....

The country is certainly divided. I personally think both parties have played their role in doing this.

The abortion wedge issue is the one we have before us at the moment. And to be honest, it's not a slam dunk for Democrats. Most Americans support abortions in at least some circumstances and most support some restrictions. A majority of our states are expected to further restrict abortion access as soon as the Supreme Court issues their ruling on Roe v Wade.

This is eerily similar to how some of the other social issue that Democrats are on the losing end of keep playing out. Democrats are convinced they are in the majority and inside every Republican there is a Democrat waiting to escape.

The USA is simply not yet a woke socialist nation. It is far more moderate if not conservative than Democrats pretend it is.

And that disconnect from reality is costly for Democrats. They forget the first lesson of politics and civil discourse: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

"The Future the Left Wants", yeah I can go along with that, a community ruled by the few that continually gets your community into life threatening situations where everyone underneath them gets no say even though it directly affects their very life and if you do say or do anything against their rule you would be demoted or thrown into the brig, so yes that is a great analogy.

In Rightwing Gilead dissidents go to The Wall!

I refused to comment on the "The Future the Right Wants" because for one thing it was preposterous, but OK fine let's do it, The Handmaids Tail was about fighting against oppression of the ruling class of the few and rightfully winning their freedom, so I guess I will go with that analogy too.

So what do you think of the Star Trek analogy.  Don't you wonder what crewman #6 thought about the command crew? 

"I personally think both parties have played their role in doing this."

I disagree 100%

I get so tired of the both sides equally guilty stuff

You imagine greatly what Democrats think and feel and do

You imagine greatly what Democrats think and feel and do

You don't have to imagine what Democrats think and feel and do. You can simply watch them do it and talk about it themselves.

It's not like the Democrats are a bunch of shrinking violets without a record or an agenda.