And this is exactly why Posie Parker is a liability

[MerchedBeca]

Yes, she's charismatic, has style and says things out loud we all wish we'd had the ovaries to say.

But sometimes, the shit she says is fucking dangerous. HOW can she say she's standing for women's rights and then blithely say that our access to abortion is a price worth paying? WTFucking hell?

This isn't about elites, or head girls or any of that shit that Posie chucks at women who disagree with her. We're seeing the biggest pushback on women's rights since before women's lib, we need to build a grass roots movement to fight this, urgently, and Posie's tactics are harming us.

So, this morning someone called Billy Bragg out on his stance on women's rights, and he came back directly with a screenshot of Posie taking shit about Roe vs Wade.

We are NEVER going to convince the left wing that this is an issue they need to get to grips with if the loudest voice they hear on this Posie who's very obviously courting the US religious right, and if every time someone tries to have a conversation with the left about this topic, we're all smeared by association with Posie and whatever shit she's said recently. I know she says she's not a feminist but that detail is lost our detractors. She's a gift to those who want to paint us all as ultra right wing bigots, and this matters.

You just linked the factual truth that abortion rights are now regulated by states - as are any things not regulated at the federal level - to Jim Crow and claimed that this is somehow this means state regulation of abortion is related to racism.

The reason people do this is to try and discredit people. Anyone who supports state regulation of abortion, or whatever, is a racist. It's a kind of pressure. The fact that they pretty much no inherent relation apart from that is irrelevant.

But your assuming the constitution isn't a living document. It very much is and the Supreme Court interprets it all the time. This is what I tried to explain above, but it could have been clearer. So for example, the 1st Amendment protects free speech. But what is considered "speech" has expanded drastically over time through Supreme Court rulings. This is just one example, but the Supreme Court interprets the constitution all the time. The originalist view of the constitution is a right wing joke. If that hasn't become clear after the Bruen ruling re guns, I'm not sure what will convince people.

I appreciate your feedback on what Democrats could be doing better. I definitely want enough seats in Congress to get rid of the filibuster and codify Roe.

So your belief is that some section or wording of A14 gives a woman a right to have an abortion.

How exactly you formulate this, other than say the elected politicians should have included it in the legislation, is unclear.

Yet that Congress are prohibited from passing legislation under the same A14 to codify that right into federal legislation.

Just out of curiously how should "Court reform" happen?

Because they see people trying to undermine the legal system in order to push an ideological agenda and they think it's wrong and scary.

Thank you for saying this. This is exactly how I feel about the Supreme Court - who aren't even elected - but who have removed a constitutional right women have had for more than 50 years, have removed state's rights to regulate guns, and have gutted the EPA. All in one court session after three new justices were appointed by republicans and annointed by the federalist society - talk about an ideological agenda. (and let's not even think about the fringe legal theory of legislative authority that they are likely to go with next session)

like you said, it is definitely wrong and scary.

If I got that wrong and you meant the ideological agenda undermining the legal system pushed by the democrats, my apologies. Could you explain what that agenda is and how it undermines the legal system so I don't make the same mistake again?

This is only true to a certain extent.

It is unquestionably true that some parts are used in ways the people who wrote it would not have anticipated. This is a kind of extrapolation, you take the principles that are in the document and apply them to situations that are new, or you can also logically extend certain principles.

That happens all the time and is uncontroversial, even very conservative judges do that. Some people might say that makes it a living document and in fact that's what the term tends to mean in other contexts.

That's a little different than the sense of "living document" you seem to be using which is that you can take pretty much anything you want and force the document to apply to it in some way. What that means is that judges have an a priori position that they read back into the text. That is not uncontroversial at all, it's very arguably dangerous and immediately politicized the judiciary to a degree that is extremely concerning, because of course their political leanings will inform their a priori positions. It makes the courts simply the tool of politics which isn't it's role and makes original lawmaking a function of the judiciary rather than of the democratic process.

That's not a normative approach for the courts, not in the US and not in any other country with some kind of representative system or democracy. In places where the courts are a political tool, they cease to act as a break on the application of power and simply become a tool for power to enforce it's will. This kind of approach has become increasingly common, not only in the US but also Canada and I believe to some extent Australia. It's incredibly dangerous.

The original decision on RvW was political. That's the only answer.

I'm not sure why that's even controversial. It was known to be political at the time. The people who made the decision said it wasn't that strong. Politicians like Joe Biden said it wasn't that strong.

Why would you be surprised, having created a political court, that it might not become political in a way that didn't favour your own position on issues?

As far as guns, that is clearly in the Constitution. However you think that should rightly interact with the role of the state, the right to bear arms is part of the constitution and has to be dealt with. Some states have quite significant gun legislation - it's harder to own a gun in California than it is in Canada - so I am not sure what kind of regulations you feel should be allowed that aren't. But whatever it is, it's pretty clear that it has to be in line with whatever "the right to bear arms" section means, or you'd have to have that section amended or removed.

I feel like what has been a discussion on divide within the feminist camp has been overtaken by a (imo) lengthy boring conversation on the American constitution....

Well heaven forbid Americans start their own thread when they can invade an existing one.

;)

Joking aside, this could have benefited from its own thread.

I think it's interesting and relevant.

As the rhetoric around the divide in relation to abortion, is often based on a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the American system and its history.

I think it's important context to understand roe Vs Wade.

You (generic you) may not like the system or the outcome but if we don't have some understanding of the context we can't interpret the significance.

The claim of authority in,: every American understands the system better than every non American amuses me too.
I don't think that's true even on this thread, never mind across a whole continent 😁!

The claim of authority in,: every American understands the system better than every non American amuses me too.
I don't think that's true even on this thread, never mind across a whole continent 😁!

That's the kind of dogmatic response I have come to expect from many from the US. They do enjoy asking others to stay in their lane, sit down and shut up, read a book etc.

@MerchedBeca BlessedKalie, I agree 100% with everything you have written here and your post wins the thread as far as I am concerned!

Us women need to appreciate each other's differences and skills and come together.
Posie has both frustrated me and inspired me. Because I'm a realist, I care about strategy and in order to convince women on the US left to GC views, I can't send them to a Posie video. So, she's not helpful to middle or leftist US women, despite her coming over her to try to help. She doesn't understand our politics, so I don't point to her as a reference. I do point out the Queen, JKR, every chance I get.

Also, I care about harm prevention and long-term goals. In the US, agreeing to disagree with Christian conservatives might work on a single legislative bill, but it won't work for a women's movement - we can't be feminist allies with people who just stripped us of our bodily rights to autonomy. I strongly disagree with Posie about abortion being not as important as our definition of women - right now in my world, loss to abortion rights is the feminist issue that will cause the most harm. Just imagine the projected numbers: unwanted babies in states that won't provide health insurance nor maternity leave, women dying from questionable mail-order or home remedy abortion methods, women dying from botched home abortions, women dying from late-term abortions, families forced to care for severely disabled children they can't afford, girls dying/being harmed from forced births, women raped in prison by male guards and women identified males who can't get abortions...and poverty, generations of it starting now.

All of our work is vital, and undermining eachother is not helpful

I agree one hundred percent with this, but, I fear, the US is heading towards some kind of shift that will cleve us irrevocable, and I fear it will involve violence. www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/03/08/they-are-preparing-war-an-expert-civil-wars-discusses-where-political-extremists-are-taking-this-country/

Some PP said they don't care about abortion rights in the US as it doesn't affect them. I've met enough women on this site who do care, so it's not a broad brush when I say, UK women have the luxury not to care, so thank you to those who do, and to those who get all snarky about shitty US politics, 🍪eat a cookie.

@MangyInseam
Yeas, early American women were going about getting abortions whenever they felt like it. Abortifacients were sold openly in every pharmacy and most wise women knew how to prepare tonics or douches as necessary. Ben Franklin even published a recipe. Pioneer women were encouraged to pack concoctions in the advice manuals for covered wagon sojourners. It was commonplace and entirely ignored by law and established religions until the time of quickening. It was regarded as nothing more than clearing delayed menses. Margaret Sanger wasn't vilified for promoting abortion, she was vilified for promoting birth control. Women already knew how to abort themselves but often died. Sangers intention was to help them prevent having to abort themselves.

I think it's fair to question whether Posie knows enough about US politics in general to comment - I certainly don't so I try and be careful. That said, when PP focuses on self ID in the US I think she brings a clarity that is desperately missing. Are any US women standing up at sports events and shouting, 'That's a man'? Maybe they are and it's not reported here but I wanted to cheer when I saw that because trust me, the whole world was laughing at the US at that point and it was a real, 'The emperor's got no clothes' moment.

As for which is more important in the scheme of things, abortion or the definition of women, I can't call it. Having no abortion rights has an immediate, devastating impact on women whereas I think the full impact of self ID will take years, if not decades, to play out. I understand why women in the USA think the first has to take priority right now. If your house is on fire you have to put it out and worry about the drought later. (Bad analogy but stay with me.) With self ID, it's our daughters I fear for.

Abortion rights are an endless global war for women. We win in some countries, we lose in some, we win back ground in others and so on. I don't think we can ever relax but maybe I'm more sanguine because I remember having no abortion rights and so I've seen how the battle works. With self ID, I have no idea how we could fight back because women will no longer have the ability to organise themselves or even talk about themselves - it's already happening. So one battle is dreadful but familiar while the other is unknown. I can't say which I think is bigger but the one that's unknown is definitely more scary to me.

The op hasn't returned so I'm guessing we're not going to find out what PP went on to say in that screenshot, but my impression is that her stance on abortion and all other issues is that self ID is her personal focus. I've no quarrel with that and I'm suspicious of those who try and turn it into a fight. To go back to my bad analogy, yes if your house is on fire you put it out first, but you don't normally complain that the climate scientists should all stop working on the drought and join the fire service.

Too many people are logically inconsistent and hypocritical. Happy to use a loophole or politicised judiciary for their own ends but horrified if the other side does it.

Seems like the main difference is those on the right admit their tactics and just don’t give a shit, but those on the left can’t face admitting that they are also manipulative and flawed.

Its all a bit alpha sociopath vs beta narcissist (and the narcissist’s self-flagellating enablers).

Oh for some rigorous, logical integrity. That is the only kind of purity I am interested in.

I think Posie/ KJK knows exactly what she is doing. I think she sees the big picture and she knows how bad it is in the States, worse than many realise, and how we need the united vote of all women to pull us back from this before it is too late. We are literally on the brink of dystopia.

Focussing in a divisive way on a divisive issue like abortion is to try to win the battle but lose the war.

Differences on abortion in the US are too entrenched to be resolved quickly and while we debate it, women as a sex are being erased, dehumanised and divided by gender ideology, mainly by those on the left.

For once women need to unite as women, as female, and be unbreakably united stemming from that basic fact in common. It really has got that serious. Men are all about divide and conquer.

ABSOLUTELY THIS!!!

I agree, Posie Parker knows what she's doing. But what she's doing is promoting right wing ideology and she's doing that because she believes in it. As do many of the posters on this board. I thought this was about some excesses of gender ideology like biology is not real but it isn't. It's the whole alt right agenda. Which is okay too but just admit it. And maybe give up the whole we are fighting for the rights of all women bullshit when you start supporting right wing factions in the US, none of whom have women's best interests at heart.

There are some very thoughtful, challenging arguments on this thread. A scattergun ‘alt right’ accusation is not one of them and, if this were a football match, Boxowine, you would be leaving the pitch right now for that amateur sliding tackle. Try and get the ball, not the players.

You've answered the last part of my point, though I don't think you've realized it - why do you think people did not regard it as a pregnancy until quickening, and why do you think that changed? Were there maybe related changes to the nature of abortion in that period?

What the heck does "right wing ideology" look like when it comes to dinner at your house?

That's definitely not how it works. You believe she's been funded somehow, you prove it.

What a load of bollocks. Are we really going to do the "you don't agree with me, ergo, you are a Right Wing fascist" thing that TRA's do?

Really? Seriously, how old are you?

Totally fair post. There were some American women, like Beth Stelzer, Linda Blade and Martina Navratilova who spoke out against Thomas swimming on the women's team. The women swimmers were told they could not speak out or lose their eligibility, so I imagine their family and friends kept silent for those reasons. They did sign anonymous letters and families spoke to the press anonymously. But I was very disappointed that no Democrat feminists in the government spoke out.

It's fine that self ID is Posie's personal focus, but the house is on fire here with abortion, so I'm not sure why she's bothering to make comments about US abortion rights not being as important as self ID...which is like, why? I don't get that and as an American feminist, my advice to Posie would be, "if you want to help us, then listen to us." She came to rallies w/ us at the US capital and then essentially told us she didn't see why we thought Biden was better than Trump. Tone deaf at best, at worse, treating us like she knew more about our politics than we did.

I agree with you that self ID/gender identity overriding sex in law is a massive hinderance to abortion rights, they are indeed intertwined, but loss of abortion rights will have both short and long-term consequences. The sheer number of women, children and families who will have painful material impacts is staggering and not completely understood. There will be economic losses, job losses, health complications, life loss and other impacts as a result of abortion bans. Abortion bans will disrupt economies all over the country and have already created stresses to overworked health orgs in abortion rights islands like Colorado, Minnesota and Illinois. Canada and Mexico are already seeing pressure from US female citizens. I agree, it's a cluster and not the only war on women, but sheesh...I wish we were only fighting self ID.

I’m pretty sure she has said she is left wing. And not all right wing people are bigots.

So off you go and do just that.