I stand by my old opinion about the whole abortion debate being largely a smokescreen to keep people in a left vs. right dichotomy by using an especially incendiary issue; but I was pretty sure they were gonna come up with some reason to delay the actual Roe decision until after the election and use it as a way of getting voters back into their "lanes" for the mid-terms, I honestly didn't think they were really gonna go through with this, and do it before the election.
They're even more desperate than I thought...
They're even more desperate than I thought...
@Indigo I agree with you but I'm 100% against the proposed vasectomy mandates that people are talking about in the wake of this. I'm not going through that painful operation, especially when I'm not into sex in the first place.
@xianc78 I don't think anything's going to come of those, it seems like more of a political tactic than anything else.
My standing theory is that the reason this happened now is largely because people were seriously starting to threaten to break the left-right dichotomy due to disenfranchisement on both sides, this gives "red meat" to the conservatives and results in political capitol to get them voting again, and builds political enfranchisement back into the Dems who were feeling pretty burned by Biden being an absolute failure (now they have a tangible Trump-related consequence to reference, since the decision was a direct result of the judges he appointed.
The biggest concern I have is the reverse of president this has set, especially with the wording Thomas used opening this up to re-evaluating precedent set on other cases too; but then again he says a lot of things, and it's not immediately financially or politically useful for them to seriously after Gay marriage or contraception, so I don't think that's going to happen.
Like everything else, follow the money, and think about who benefits.
My standing theory is that the reason this happened now is largely because people were seriously starting to threaten to break the left-right dichotomy due to disenfranchisement on both sides, this gives "red meat" to the conservatives and results in political capitol to get them voting again, and builds political enfranchisement back into the Dems who were feeling pretty burned by Biden being an absolute failure (now they have a tangible Trump-related consequence to reference, since the decision was a direct result of the judges he appointed.
The biggest concern I have is the reverse of president this has set, especially with the wording Thomas used opening this up to re-evaluating precedent set on other cases too; but then again he says a lot of things, and it's not immediately financially or politically useful for them to seriously after Gay marriage or contraception, so I don't think that's going to happen.
Like everything else, follow the money, and think about who benefits.
Follow
@Indigo Sure it may try to re-enforce the left-right dichotomy but it's also clear that the elites want population control so having vasectomy mandates would be beneficial to them, especially since they are not 100% reversible, despite all the claims. So some men will end up permanently sterile.
The only angle I could see is if it's mandatory than the government would likely pay for it, which would open the door for doctors to jack reimbursement prices just like they do for stuff covered by medicare since the governments footing the bill; so it might be beneficial to the medical industrial complex, but it might still not be worth it.
I wouldn't worry about it too much though (granted, I say this as someone who has considered getting a vasectomy himself, despite being (mostly) gay, just in case).