They're conservative Americans. They don't need justification, they can just claim the Bible said so and their rabid supporters will choke it down without question. That none of them have ever bothered to actually read the Bible is irrelevant.
If that's the goal: then the outcome is predictable. The world will trade with the states that are willing to be reasonable in terms of basic human rights and laws, and the rest (say... 26 or so.) will become ever more refined and purified third world, poverty stricken hell holes.As I saw someone else put it, they're trying to set it up so each state has it's own jurisdiction with little to no Federal oversight. Effectively seceding in all but name. At best they're trying to get something akin to the original Confederation of States that failed before the Constitution was made, or the original ideal of Federalism, which can't really work in the modern era given how interconnected everything is IMO. And either way it allows certain states to finally live their dream of becoming unofficial theocracies.
Honestly, before this past week, I'd have argued that "one doesn't have to be religious to understand the 'murder' argument," but we're getting to the point where "religion" (and, specifically, a specific variety of Christianity) is the out-and-out justification, and they're not even trying to hide it anymore.Yeah, but... how do you reasonably justify that? With abortion, it's the "it's murder" argument. Again, major disagreement, but I can still see the argument.
With contraceptives, what actual harm do they cause that justifies banning them? It's like banning safety belts, or making it illegal not to carry a gun.
Well, the "they" in my post was specifically the Supreme Court, which has shifted more recently, but your comments about the evangelical right wing more generally are certainly acknowledged.Exactly. These are the stances of evangelical Christian Nationalists, or those who are simply using them as their base. This is the stuff they've been screeching about for almost 50 years. It's never been well-hidden, but now it's right out in the open.
I no longer take methatrexate (and being male, would be unlikely to have an abortion, anyway), but I do remember being told that I couldn't (or shouldn't) father a child while taking it, because it could cause severe genetic defects.And the knock-on effects have started too:
…this is a big hugging deal. This extends the state’s jurisdiction in Indian Country (legal name for tribal lands) to include crimes committed against Indians by non-Indians. Formerly, unless state was requested to assist by the tribe, only the federal government could do so.
On the one hand, public school prayer is back. On the other hand, I grew up with school prayer, so trust me when I say that forcing people to recite those words every day does NOT endear your religion to them.
Only the GOP would force a 15-year old girl to have a baby against her will, and then treat her like jive for the rest of her life because she exhibited such poor judgement by having a kid at 15.
Are you guilty of the crime of sodomy? According to the Texas statute, the crime of sodomy or "Deviate sexual intercourse" is "any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person".
Let's emphasize just how broad this law is: you are literally guilty under the Texas anti-sodomy statute if any part of your genitals has ever touched another person's mouth.
What percentage of the sexually active population has NOT committed this crime? Sure, Mike Pence can rest easy, but what about the rest of us?