It's a little disappointing. This is supposed to be the Feminista Friday column, yet all the comments are by men. Are we to assume that women are satisfied with the situation outlined by Julie?
Yesterday read an article about right-wing “pronatalists” who advocate having multiple births. One of these is Musk who has 12 offspring. Others of the MAGA cult (including VEEP Vance) advocate women bearing children essentially as a patriotic duty. Apparently by going after Planned Parenthood and any and all abortions they are foisting this on Americans women by fiat.
Her dislike of Governor Murphy is well-known and TOTALLY appropriate, but she and Senator Kim seem to be the only two Democrats in the state with the intelligence and "audacity" to take him on; Tom Moran having disappeared with the Star-Ledger.
just published stories about the rise in infant mortality in states with stringent abortion bans. One possible ray of hope: don't automatically dismiss SCOTUS in ALL future related cases. I'm not prepared to discuss the merits of either Roe or Dobbs, but what little I understand is that from a purely legalistic viewpoint, Roe may not have been the ideal decision from a purely tecnhical viewpoint--although I STRONGLY agree with its finding. You also mention the "men" on SCOTUS. Don't forget that CJ Roberts often attempts to base his decisions on law, rather than emotion. Also, Amy Coney Barrett, while unquestionably a devout Catholic (there's no law against that), has tended to base many of her opinions on law as well.
It seems that the most realistic way of opposing the current MAGA tsunami is through the courts. That will take well-prepared cases based on law and not on what "should be right." Again, I'm not in the least qualified to evaluate a case presentation, but I recall reading that much of the defense position on Dobbs relied heavily on stare decisis instead of attacking the Dobbs case via legal arguments. Remember, if stare decisis was sacrosanct to SCOTUS, Brown v BOW would have had a vastly different outcome.
It's a little disappointing. This is supposed to be the Feminista Friday column, yet all the comments are by men. Are we to assume that women are satisfied with the situation outlined by Julie?
Yesterday read an article about right-wing “pronatalists” who advocate having multiple births. One of these is Musk who has 12 offspring. Others of the MAGA cult (including VEEP Vance) advocate women bearing children essentially as a patriotic duty. Apparently by going after Planned Parenthood and any and all abortions they are foisting this on Americans women by fiat.
Horrible. Louisiana looks like it will soon enter the karma phase of FAFO. Unfortunate.
Probably most people on this site are also NJ.com viewers, but for those few who may not be, check out this Opinion column featuring Julie:
https://www.nj.com/opinion/2025/02/dont-blame-trumps-funding-cuts-for-njs-budget-woes-opinion.html
Her dislike of Governor Murphy is well-known and TOTALLY appropriate, but she and Senator Kim seem to be the only two Democrats in the state with the intelligence and "audacity" to take him on; Tom Moran having disappeared with the Star-Ledger.
Your concerns are all valid. Several sites, including https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d9z853jndo
just published stories about the rise in infant mortality in states with stringent abortion bans. One possible ray of hope: don't automatically dismiss SCOTUS in ALL future related cases. I'm not prepared to discuss the merits of either Roe or Dobbs, but what little I understand is that from a purely legalistic viewpoint, Roe may not have been the ideal decision from a purely tecnhical viewpoint--although I STRONGLY agree with its finding. You also mention the "men" on SCOTUS. Don't forget that CJ Roberts often attempts to base his decisions on law, rather than emotion. Also, Amy Coney Barrett, while unquestionably a devout Catholic (there's no law against that), has tended to base many of her opinions on law as well.
It seems that the most realistic way of opposing the current MAGA tsunami is through the courts. That will take well-prepared cases based on law and not on what "should be right." Again, I'm not in the least qualified to evaluate a case presentation, but I recall reading that much of the defense position on Dobbs relied heavily on stare decisis instead of attacking the Dobbs case via legal arguments. Remember, if stare decisis was sacrosanct to SCOTUS, Brown v BOW would have had a vastly different outcome.