Alabama: Better Save the Tray of Embryos Over the Baby

[IronWing]

Any day now someone in the bible belt is going to, in the style of turning back the clock on the progress our American culture has made in the last 100+ years, declare that The Age of Prohibition needs to be reinstituted because alcohol is the Devil's brew and the cause of good men to turn their backs on the Lord's teachings. Or is it too late for that, unlike the other personal rights that the Republicans have taken away from us "for our own damn good" and are in the progress of taking away, like our right to freely elect our representatives to gov't.

God or no god, Prohibition worked. It had some unpleasant side effects to be sure but prohibition drastically reduced alcohol consumption. Per capita consumption only recovered to pre-Prohibition levels in the 1970s-80s when the Boomers were in their peak drinking years. O come, come away!

Back on topic:
To folks who say that Roe v Wade should have been codified, I point out that voting rights are codified in the Voting Rights Act and the Supremes voided the law because, in their eyes, it is "unnecessary".

 

[APU_Fusion]

God or no god, Prohibition worked. It had some unpleasant side effects to be sure but prohibition drastically reduced alcohol consumption. Per capita consumption only recovered to pre-Prohibition levels in the 1970s-80s when the Boomers were in their peak drinking years. O come, come away!

Back on topic:
To folks who say that Roe v Wade should have been codified, I point out that voting rights are codified in the Voting Rights Act and the Supremes voided the law because, in their eyes, it is "unnecessary".

I would like to see the citation for the alcohol consumption. That is interesting.

 

[IronWing]

I would like to see the citation for the alcohol consumption. That is interesting.

I looked at the table here:

Total alcohol consumption per capita by year U.S. 1850-2022| Statista

Alcohol consumption has generally decreased in the U.S. since the 1980s. However, alcohol consumption has increased in recent years.

www.statista.com

The site let me see the full data the first time I looked. After that, it told me to get an account, so if you can see the data, look close the first time.

A crappy version of the data is here, similar in trend, but ends in 1980.

Figure 1.1, [The per capita consumption of...]. - Alcohol in America - NCBI Bookshelf

This page provides the data, in the most annoying fashion imaginable:

How Much Americans Have Been Drinking (Almost) Every Year Since 1850

Alcohol consumption in the U.S. reached a 30-year high in 2020. The per capita ingestion of ethanol (drinking alcohol) was 2.45 gallons that year – a 2.9% increase from 2019, and the highest rate seen since 1990. By census region, the largest increases were seen in the Midwest (4.2%) and the...

247wallst.com

Also a free article on historical context here:

Alcohol in America on JSTOR

W. J. Rorabaugh, Alcohol in America, OAH Magazine of History, Vol. 6, No. 2, Drug Use in History (Fall, 1991), pp. 17-19

www.jstor.org

In the 1830s, Americans were giants, I tell you!

 

[MrSquished]

God or no god, Prohibition worked. It had some unpleasant side effects to be sure but prohibition drastically reduced alcohol consumption. Per capita consumption only recovered to pre-Prohibition levels in the 1970s-80s when the Boomers were in their peak drinking years. O come, come away!

Back on topic:
To folks who say that Roe v Wade should have been codified, I point out that voting rights are codified in the Voting Rights Act and the Supremes voided the law because, in their eyes, it is "unnecessary".

You don't think the supremes overthrowing an established law vs a ruling precedent would have been a bit of a different story? That's surprising.

Your second argument today that Republicans are going to be bad, so let's not try to make it harder for them or do better.

Not codifying roe into law was a big fuck up. Why is that hard to admit?

 

[APU_Fusion]

I looked at the table here:

Total alcohol consumption per capita by year U.S. 1850-2022| Statista

Alcohol consumption has generally decreased in the U.S. since the 1980s. However, alcohol consumption has increased in recent years.

www.statista.com

The site let me see the full data the first time I looked. After that, it told me to get an account, so if you can see the data, look close the first time.

A crappy version of the data is here, similar in trend, but ends in 1980.

Figure 1.1, [The per capita consumption of...]. - Alcohol in America - NCBI Bookshelf

This page provides the data, in the most annoying fashion imaginable:

How Much Americans Have Been Drinking (Almost) Every Year Since 1850

Alcohol consumption in the U.S. reached a 30-year high in 2020. The per capita ingestion of ethanol (drinking alcohol) was 2.45 gallons that year – a 2.9% increase from 2019, and the highest rate seen since 1990. By census region, the largest increases were seen in the Midwest (4.2%) and the...

247wallst.com

Also a free article on historical context here:

Alcohol in America on JSTOR

W. J. Rorabaugh, Alcohol in America, OAH Magazine of History, Vol. 6, No. 2, Drug Use in History (Fall, 1991), pp. 17-19

www.jstor.org

In the 1830s, Americans were giants, I tell you!

Fascinating. I wonder if the lack of reliable, clean drinking water was why people drank so much back in the 1800s. 🤔

 

[K1052]

AFAIK alcohol consumption fell dramatically the first couple years of prohibition but steadily increased again as time went on reaching about 75% of pre-prohibition level.

As a policy to reduce consumption it technically worked but the secondary effects were not good.

 

[K1052]

Not codifying roe into law was a big fuck up. Why is that hard to admit?

If this court is going to make up events whole cloth and lie about black letter law a codified Roe isn't worth the paper its printed on.

 

[APU_Fusion]

AFAIK alcohol consumption fell dramatically the first couple years of prohibition but steadily increased again as time went on reaching about 75% of pre-prohibition level.

As a policy to reduce consumption it technically worked but the secondary effects were not good.

They drank from the stress of not being able to 🍺

 

[MrSquished]

If this court is going to make up events whole cloth and lie about black letter law a codified Roe isn't worth the paper its printed on.

I think you are just excusing a clear mistake by the Dems. it's barely even debatable. Let's not make laws because the Republicans are bad. Wtf?

I'm starting to see there is a bit of an establishment Democrat cult.

 

[K1052]

I think you are just excusing a clear mistake by the Dems. it's barely even debatable. Let's not make laws because the Republicans are bad. Wtf?

I'm starting to see there is a bit of an establishment Democrat cult.

No the mistake was not packing the court.

 

[MrSquished]

No the mistake was not packing the court.

Well then run on' fuck passing laws, it's useless, what's the point, let's pack the court.'

Genius.

 

[K1052]

Well then run on' fuck passing laws, it's useless, what's the point, let's pack the court.'

Genius.

Pretending they're going to leave the number one thing they care about alone just because congress passes a law that they get to review is naive at best.

If you want national pro-choice laws to stand you need a different court makeup. Simple as that.

 

[Brainonska511]

If this court is going to make up events whole cloth and lie about black letter law a codified Roe isn't worth the paper its printed on.

Codification is red herring. SCOTUS doesn't give a crap what laws Congress might pass if it conflicts with their conservative agenda. They could easily throw a "codification" law right out the window and say it's a state issue.

Obviously, the solution is to pack the court, but that policy could still be a bit of a political loser (no point burning political capital on a losing issue if we're not close enough to a tipping point to get it over the top. SCOTUS can continue to dig a hole for itself though and build the support needed to change the makeup.)

 

[MrSquished]

Pretending they're going to leave the number one thing they care about alone just because congress passes a law that they get to review is naive at best.

If you want national pro-choice laws to stand you need a different court makeup. Simple as that.

No matter what you say, it would have been much smarter to codify roe into law.

I think the fact people can't admit that is like being in a establishment D cult. It's just reality, admit it and then brainstorm more.

You can't do shit if you can't even admit blazingly clear reality.

Sad. Bigly.

 

[fskimospy]

If this court is going to make up events whole cloth and lie about black letter law a codified Roe isn't worth the paper its printed on.

The idea that the Democrats could have codified Roe into law and chose not to is showing a very basic lack of understanding of how our system of government works.

There has never been 60 votes to do that in the Senate, ever.

 

[HomerJS]

There were always other Democrat priorities.

Roe was taken for granted

Justices lied at their confirmation hearings about respect for precedent.

There’s where Dems dropped the ball.

If Dems pull a trifecta this fall they can codify it. Enough of a groundswell to either survive a filibuster or Dems do a carve out. If Pubs suffer a major defeat they won’t get in the way.

 

[MrSquished]

The idea that the Democrats could have codified Roe into law and chose not to is showing a very basic lack of understanding of how our system of government works.

There has never been 60 votes to do that in the Senate, ever.

No matter what, you try and make it an issue. Also, see Obamacare. And btw, they're are a few pro choice Republican senators. We could have forced it to a vote multiple times. MAKE THEM GO ON RECORD. seriously. This is child's play politics here.

But of course, from the biggest latte liberal establishment out of touch dem on this board, though k10 whatever is making his own case, I wouldn't expect less but this pathetic excuse.

If Dems can't admit the most fundamental flaws in their party, they are lost.

Pathetic really. Really totally pathetic cultishness here.

 

[fskimospy]

There were always other Democrat priorities.

Roe was taken for granted

Justices lied at their confirmation hearings about respect for precedent.

There’s where Dems dropped the ball.

If Dems pull a trifecta this fall they can codify it. Enough of a groundswell to either survive a filibuster or Dems do a carve out. If Pubs suffer a major defeat they won’t get in the way.

Democrats might be able to do that now but at no point when they held a trifecta in the past were there sufficient votes to do what you guys want. This is simply reality.

Go look at the 2009 Senate, the high water mark for Democrats in our lifetimes, and point me to 60 votes to codify Roe there. If you can’t then what’s the argument exactly?

 

[MrSquished]

Democrats might be able to do that now but at no point when they held a trifecta in the past were there sufficient votes to do what you guys want. This is simply reality.

Go look at the 2009 Senate, the high water mark for Democrats in our lifetimes, and point me to 60 votes to codify Roe there. If you can’t then what’s the argument exactly?

Imagine being such a cult member you think the Dems had no opportune moments to bring codifying Roe intow law in the last 4 decades since the precedent. Whether it succeeded or not, one of the biggest things is putting R's on the record at many times in recent history.

You are an intellectual joke dude. Pull yourself together, this is just a terrible performance. I know you have it in you somewhere, where you aren't a political milquetoast. They are low odds but I still have faith, as mean and cynical as I am.

 

[Indus]

Democrats might be able to do that now but at no point when they held a trifecta in the past were there sufficient votes to do what you guys want. This is simply reality.

Go look at the 2009 Senate, the high water mark for Democrats in our lifetimes, and point me to 60 votes to codify Roe there. If you can’t then what’s the argument exactly?

While I agree with you.. the scotus destroyed citizens united.. voting rights act.

Do you really think they would stop if Roe was codified?

 

[fskimospy]

While I agree with you.. the scotus destroyed citizens united.. voting rights act.

Do you really think they would stop if Roe was codified?

No, not at all. They would Calvinball their way to whatever result they wanted, which is why expanding the court is the real answer.

 

[MrSquished]

Imagine saying, well let's excuse us for not taking opportunities well before most people saw what the GQP would become today for doing really really basic political things; we are excused because now they are really really bad. Maybe if you did certain things before the GQP became what it was because you had some political sense in the first fucking place, we would be at least a littler better off today. But no, let's just excuse everything, because we can't criticize Dems for pretty much anything these days while still PUSHING FOR THEM TO WIN.

Are you people this much in a cult you can't fucking deal with the past honestly?

Imagine giving the Dems a pass for not trying to codify Roe in four decades. I mean this is a fucking joke right?

 

[HomerJS]

Democrats might be able to do that now but at no point when they held a trifecta in the past were there sufficient votes to do what you guys want. This is simply reality.

Go look at the 2009 Senate, the high water mark for Democrats in our lifetimes, and point me to 60 votes to codify Roe there. If you can’t then what’s the argument exactly?

That’s true but abortion rights are the most popular they have ever been. Seems people react when you take away those rights.

 

[MrSquished]

That’s true but abortion rights are the most popular they have ever been. Seems people react when you take away those rights.

It was at least totally worth it to bring it to the floor at least a few times in four decades. Including a solid chance or two for it to pass - you push it to a floor vote at the right moments. Come on, don't give this milquetoast a pass.

Secondly, a big thing in the media when Roe was overturned was that it was precedent, not established law. I mean let's get a grip here. The cult of Biden is setting us back - excuse every mistake that helped get us here! never learn from history!

It's weird to be stuck in between the lunacy of gotheuvos and a bunch of cultists on the other side.

 

[Meghan54]

That’s true but abortion rights are the most popular they have ever been. Seems people react when you take away those rights.

People are saying Repubs have been having more and more significant difficulties in elections because of the overturning of Roe. Seems a possible strong chip to play this Nov.