The Reverend


Over the past few years, as conservatives absorbed their diminishing prospects to compete in national elections, their response was to have red states conspire together to pass voter ID laws that were, coincidentally, virtually identical. In spite of the fact that in-person voter fraud is as likely in America as earthlings being visited by Martians, Republican-controlled states swore that what they were up to in these voter ID laws was...sincere...



They have a valid and legitimate state interest not only in deterring and detecting voter fraud, but also in maintaining the confidence of their citizens in the security of U.S. elections.



"deterring" voter fraud, which is non-existent...and "maintaining" citizen "confidence" in elections which have never been affected, ever, by in-person voter fraud.



Under the pretense of stopping non-existent in person voter fraud, a conspiracy was launched which, in reality, was meant to trim ever-so-much the number of likely-Democratic votes cast in any given election.



This morning the Supreme Court handed down a 5-3 decision striking down yet another red state conspiracy to nullify the legal right of a woman to pursue an abortion on the phony pretense of "ensuring (abortion) patient safety".....



Texas defended the restrictions, saying that states have wide discretion to pass laws in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty. The state said the law was passed "to ensure patient safety and raise standards of care."



You and I both know that those two sentences are simply unmitigated bullshite....and five Justices now also agree.



The Texas law struck down this morning contained two entirely unnecessary new requirements for abortion providers in the Lone Star State....first, clinics providing abortion services must meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers...and second, it required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.



Majority-opinion writer Justice Breyer eviscerated those two faux-excuses masquerading as Seriousness with this...



"neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution."



Which, of course, was the purpose of these "new" Serious red state laws in the first place. What frosts my cookies about all this is not that conservatives and Republicans oppose a woman's right to choose. Hell, that's been crystal clear for over 40 years. What pisses me off is the pretending that there was ever some deeply held moral concern over the medical safety of abortion-seeking women....which bolstered their defense of those laws.



This is what red state laws further restricting freedom to choose was always, and only, about...



Since the law was passed, the number of clinics providing abortion services in Texas dropped to 19 from 42. Opponents said that number would fall to ten if the Supreme Court upheld the law.



That has been the goal all along....in the same way that trimming likely-Democratic votes by passing unnecessary voter ID laws was always the goal of red state voter ID laws.



What smolders my derriere is how media, judges, and courts feel compelled to play along with this obviously insincere pretending. There has never been a serious, persuadable argument in support of voter ID laws. In person voter fraud doesn't exist. Why in the hell would anyone buy into some preventative action to stop something that doesn't happen? In the same vein, what potent dope (new band name?) would you have to be taking in order to be convinced that laws passed in states full of anti-choicers are anything but thinly-veiled attempts to prevent women from exercising their legal right to choose?



Anyway, Republicans have now been exposed by the Court for the pretenders they always have been. NBC got this sentence almost right....



The restrictions in Texas represented a new front in efforts to restrict abortion by focusing on protecting the health and safety of the mother rather than the life of the fetus.



The only edit I would make is replacing "focusing on protecting" to "pretending to focus on protecting".



Finally....



The court's decision will affect similar laws in twelve other states, some now on hold because of court challenges.



Ohio is one of those 12 states.