So, you know how all the pro-choice Senators seem to be talking to Kavanaugh like he’s a child. And you know how Kavanaugh’s like a kid on the playground who won’t admit to anything?
Well we’re about to lose reproductive rights so how about let’s get a fucking adult in the Supreme Court.
We wanted to talk about “precedent on precedent” again. Now look, we know that Kavanaugh’s just winking at the anti-choicers with this whole “settled law” nonsense, and trying to trick us by being… as obvious as possible. I mean, we all read the leaked documents today.
But… let’s be real, the “precedent on precedent” isn’t that great either. If Hillary were president, we wouldn’t be AT BRUNCH much as those lazy protests signs make it seem. We’d be trying to make sure the effects of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey didn’t destroy people in the South. But since someone else is president well… now we’re having to FUCKING DEFEND ROE on top of making sure Casey doesn’t fuck us.
So for the uninitiated, in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Roe was NOT REALLY reaffirmed. Sure, abortion remained legal (a… win? A win for something that shouldn’t have to be constantly reaffirmed). BUT, the court added a serious “BUT ALSO…” The court ruled that laws hindering a person’s access to abortion COULD exist, so long as there was no “undue burden” on the patient. Now, we talked yesterday about what bullshit that phrase is. Like, love having a bunch of old men decide how much I should be forced to jump through hoops for my healthcare. But today let’s talk about what Kavanaugh invoking Casey actually means.
It’s the old “death by a thousand cuts” argument. Kavanaugh’s saying that they don’t have to overturn Roe, they can just weaken it until it’s effectively useless in some states. Sure, abortion is legal in, let’s say, Iowa, but maybe you can’t get it after… six weeks. Oh yeah, so that’s a real law now. And it’s definitely unconstitutional, but maybe with 5 Supreme Court justices, suddenly it’s NOT an “undue burden” to know you’re pregnant literally the second it happens (or ELSE). I mean, just in Texas (where Amy Hagstom-Miller and Whole Woman’s WON) they were debating if a … simple medical procedure (the SAFEST MEDICAL procedure) being outlawed constituted an undue burden. Yep yep yep yep, a judge had to DECIDE if NOT GIVING A PERSON THE SAFEST PROCEDURE was, like, a big deal. **head desk**
Already there are states where people have to wait three days between appointments (not an undue burden we guess), have to see the exact same doctor for each appointment (hey, not an undue burden, the doctor’s just a nice guy), have to receive counseling where they’re lied too about personhood (idk, not an undue burden to just have to listen to a liar), or have to get parental consent (or like, go to court if your dad’s a rapist to get around this, look we’re not being unreasonable, just like, come to court and relive your trauma). It can only get worse.
So remember that “precedent on precedent” doesn’t mean… shit. Call your senators!