![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptYes, this is primarily about Dobbs. but also, it was not a good week for the rule of law or the principle of stare decisis in the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States announced decisions on the cases that had been put before the court, and, as expected, the newly theorcratic-leaning block did a significant amount of work toward moving the United States back in the direction of a country where only a cisgender heterosexual wealthy white man in lockstep with Christian dominionists would ever be allowed to have rights, protections, or anything resembling political power.
Early in the week, the Court decided that proper exercise of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause in saying that Maine could not prevent students who received voucher funding from the state to attend school from using those funds to attend a sectarian school. (Because in the States, there's the long-standing precedent that state funds are not used to fund explicitly religious exercises, even if they might fund secular exercises that take advantage of religious infrastructure and communities to distribute things to those that need them.)
Past that, the court then struck down most states' frameworks for restricting concealed carry of guns and setting a test that demands a state find their reasoning for any regulation in the "historical precedent" of the country, using much the same language in the leaked draft opinion we saw a few months ago. The Court has apparently decided that unless you can find the justification in the writings of white men from several technological improvements in firearms ago, you can't regulate guns. (Which, y'know, that whole "well-regulated Militia" part continues to be ignored in for of "guns for everyone, no restrictions, and if you get killed by one, sucks to be you.")
The court also ruled that if the police fail to inform someone of their Miranda rights while they are in custody, the police are not automatically sueable for a violation of civil rights, because failing to inform someone of their rights doesn't violate them. Of course, that means someone has to know what their rights are and then make the appropriate motions for suppression of any statements or other elements that were obtained improperly. Of course, there's also the part where most cases don't go to trial where someone could make the argument that material was improperly obtained and have it suppressed. It's probably not an illogical conclusion to say that the Court gave the cops permission to "forget" to inform you of your rights, so they'll be "forgetting" that a whole lot more.
The point, really, is: you still have the right not to talk to cops. If the cops insist on talking to you or arresting you, ("Am I free to go?" is sometimes a useful question to ask there. If they say you are free to go, you continue not to to talk to cops and you GTFO.) you have the right to have a lawyer present during the questioning, and you have the right to avoid making any statement you think would be self-incriminating. Assume the cops will try to turn any statement you make into an incriminating one. Assume any statement a cop makes to you about your alleged guilt and what evidence they may have about it is a lie. Therefore, you still have the right not to talk to cops. (You have to do it clearly, unambiguously, and with specific language, like "I am invoking my right to have an attorney present during questioning." and "I am invoking my Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination." And you say nothing else but those things regardless of what gets asked or threatened.)
Of course, they saved their very worst, most impactful, and least grounded in law or precedent decision for the end of the week, when the court overturned fifty years of precedent and removed the protections of pregnant people to seek abortion services, using language similar to the leaked draft opinion earlier in the year. In a concurrence, one of the justices said that this opinion should pave the way to rolling back similar protections around marriage, contraception, and being queer in public that used similar arguments around bodily autonomy and the privacy of individuals. Other justices said not to worry about other precedents being challenged, but given that those same justices signed on to this decision, I think we can safely assume they're lying and be pleasantly surprised if they're not. Perhaps the smartest of the majority laments that the rest of the majority, whom he still agrees with, chose to take a much bigger bite than he believes they should have.
The majority, in rendering this decision, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, since there are plenty of recognized religious beliefs in the country where access to and the performance of abortion is not only permitted, but in some cases, is mandated. And also, likely violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because there's no way in hell that the justices voting in the majority have a 100% secular, not derived from their religious beliefs in any way at all, reason to say the state has a compelling interest in the regulation of pregnant people. (Of course, since it's pretty likely that the justices in the majority believe there is only one legitimate religion, their own, they don't see any problems with either of these violations.)
(I also have an opinion in my head about how this decision crushes, once and for all, the idea that neutrality is any sort of refuge an organization can use to try and avoid political decisions, but that's going to be filtered through the perspective of the library world, so it's tangential to this.)
Since the matter of provisioning abortion services is now remanded to states and localities, the obvious places that need support now are local access and the distribution and advocacy networks that have been working for local and available access, even in places that are outlawing those services. For people who are able to take them, medication is available through USPS mail, at least until someone decides to reinstate a version of the Comstock Laws. Using pills to manage your own care is safe when done according to the directions, and also links to another source to consult with professionals that can teach you how to use them properly, as well as get the pills. (We say "for those that can," because a lot of emergency contraception or other medication options have weight requirements or other conditions under which they will be either less effective or not effective at all.) Many things that will be touted as herbal abortifacents will do an excellent job of killing the person taking them, because their toxicity is not standardized, so their dosage isn't, either. For others, getting connected to a local fund to assist with expenses for procedures or for getting to and from places that will perform the procedure will be the way to go. (The same information that will direct you to local organizations to find funds is the same tool that will help you find local organizations to fund.) For those that will need to travel, organizations such as Elevated Access provide volunteers to fly people to places where they need to go.
Maps about public action and demonstration in your area, including artwork already created to express your opinion at politicians.
There will also be the need to harden one's organizations and security practices against surveillance and spying by our networked pocket computers and our networked servers. Digital Defense Fund tries to help organizations become more secure, as well as offering some information for the people seeking information. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a guide on making your communications more secure and less associated with you, which will make it harder, but not necessarily impossible, for a malicious actor to identify you or gain access to your information. Consider, also, that if you have a public library accessible to you, using their computers and networks to do any research or make plans may help anonymize you. Even more so if they offer guest access to the Internet, so that you don't even have a library card number in a system should law enforcement come snooping for those records. (Librarians, we should probably push even more for setting up Tor exit nodes for people looking to access information that may be restricted in their state or may be used as evidence for the "crime" of seeking accurate information, and for the use of Tor browsing as a default.)
In states where abortion remains legal, they are forming alliances to ensure that care remains accessible in their state, and sometimes forming multi-state alliances to ensure that they both remain committed to legal abortion care and in refusing demands from those states that have outlawed abortion for information about medical procedures or extradition of persons who received a legal abortion in their states.
The consequences of elections are rarely this obvious to the observer, but this decision comes because of the same party that tried to overturn a democratic election. The consistency of the Republican Party is that if it gives them power, or gives white rich cishet men power over everyone else, they will do it and work even more toward such a result. They are antithetical to the continuation of the United States as a representative democracy and a republic. Anyone who takes their badge should never be allowed near the levers of power. Any of them who attempt to masquerade under the badge of the Democratic party should be expelled and not allowed near the levers of power.
As for the Democrats, a continued insistence that the rules must be followed and cannot be changed in the face of an opposition that has been saying and acting that the rules do not apply to them is a losing strategy. Replace those who would fundraise on the issue rather than taking action with those who will take action first and then fundraise on their successes. Whatever moment they are waiting for that is their red line has already passed, and as citizens, it is now our job to press all of our elected representatives to take real action. Any excuse they have for not taking action is unacceptable. The institutions that have been so skillfully used to ensure the minority gets to dictate the policy decisions and keep the country moving toward control by theocrats, oligarchs, and fascists cannot be allowed to continue supporting that agenda. Whatever the personal opinion of Democrats might be of the opposing party's members, even if they're genial and cordial, they are working toward and supporting undemocratic ends. Do not stand by and claim it can't be helped.
(The hyperlinks for the post come from my reading list, almost all of whom are people who could be forced into birth. For some of them, their jurisdictions have not yet followed this pathway. For others, the nightmare has already arrived. Stay safe, as best you can.)
Early in the week, the Court decided that proper exercise of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause in saying that Maine could not prevent students who received voucher funding from the state to attend school from using those funds to attend a sectarian school. (Because in the States, there's the long-standing precedent that state funds are not used to fund explicitly religious exercises, even if they might fund secular exercises that take advantage of religious infrastructure and communities to distribute things to those that need them.)
Past that, the court then struck down most states' frameworks for restricting concealed carry of guns and setting a test that demands a state find their reasoning for any regulation in the "historical precedent" of the country, using much the same language in the leaked draft opinion we saw a few months ago. The Court has apparently decided that unless you can find the justification in the writings of white men from several technological improvements in firearms ago, you can't regulate guns. (Which, y'know, that whole "well-regulated Militia" part continues to be ignored in for of "guns for everyone, no restrictions, and if you get killed by one, sucks to be you.")
The court also ruled that if the police fail to inform someone of their Miranda rights while they are in custody, the police are not automatically sueable for a violation of civil rights, because failing to inform someone of their rights doesn't violate them. Of course, that means someone has to know what their rights are and then make the appropriate motions for suppression of any statements or other elements that were obtained improperly. Of course, there's also the part where most cases don't go to trial where someone could make the argument that material was improperly obtained and have it suppressed. It's probably not an illogical conclusion to say that the Court gave the cops permission to "forget" to inform you of your rights, so they'll be "forgetting" that a whole lot more.
The point, really, is: you still have the right not to talk to cops. If the cops insist on talking to you or arresting you, ("Am I free to go?" is sometimes a useful question to ask there. If they say you are free to go, you continue not to to talk to cops and you GTFO.) you have the right to have a lawyer present during the questioning, and you have the right to avoid making any statement you think would be self-incriminating. Assume the cops will try to turn any statement you make into an incriminating one. Assume any statement a cop makes to you about your alleged guilt and what evidence they may have about it is a lie. Therefore, you still have the right not to talk to cops. (You have to do it clearly, unambiguously, and with specific language, like "I am invoking my right to have an attorney present during questioning." and "I am invoking my Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination." And you say nothing else but those things regardless of what gets asked or threatened.)
Of course, they saved their very worst, most impactful, and least grounded in law or precedent decision for the end of the week, when the court overturned fifty years of precedent and removed the protections of pregnant people to seek abortion services, using language similar to the leaked draft opinion earlier in the year. In a concurrence, one of the justices said that this opinion should pave the way to rolling back similar protections around marriage, contraception, and being queer in public that used similar arguments around bodily autonomy and the privacy of individuals. Other justices said not to worry about other precedents being challenged, but given that those same justices signed on to this decision, I think we can safely assume they're lying and be pleasantly surprised if they're not. Perhaps the smartest of the majority laments that the rest of the majority, whom he still agrees with, chose to take a much bigger bite than he believes they should have.
The majority, in rendering this decision, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, since there are plenty of recognized religious beliefs in the country where access to and the performance of abortion is not only permitted, but in some cases, is mandated. And also, likely violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because there's no way in hell that the justices voting in the majority have a 100% secular, not derived from their religious beliefs in any way at all, reason to say the state has a compelling interest in the regulation of pregnant people. (Of course, since it's pretty likely that the justices in the majority believe there is only one legitimate religion, their own, they don't see any problems with either of these violations.)
(I also have an opinion in my head about how this decision crushes, once and for all, the idea that neutrality is any sort of refuge an organization can use to try and avoid political decisions, but that's going to be filtered through the perspective of the library world, so it's tangential to this.)
Since the matter of provisioning abortion services is now remanded to states and localities, the obvious places that need support now are local access and the distribution and advocacy networks that have been working for local and available access, even in places that are outlawing those services. For people who are able to take them, medication is available through USPS mail, at least until someone decides to reinstate a version of the Comstock Laws. Using pills to manage your own care is safe when done according to the directions, and also links to another source to consult with professionals that can teach you how to use them properly, as well as get the pills. (We say "for those that can," because a lot of emergency contraception or other medication options have weight requirements or other conditions under which they will be either less effective or not effective at all.) Many things that will be touted as herbal abortifacents will do an excellent job of killing the person taking them, because their toxicity is not standardized, so their dosage isn't, either. For others, getting connected to a local fund to assist with expenses for procedures or for getting to and from places that will perform the procedure will be the way to go. (The same information that will direct you to local organizations to find funds is the same tool that will help you find local organizations to fund.) For those that will need to travel, organizations such as Elevated Access provide volunteers to fly people to places where they need to go.
Maps about public action and demonstration in your area, including artwork already created to express your opinion at politicians.
There will also be the need to harden one's organizations and security practices against surveillance and spying by our networked pocket computers and our networked servers. Digital Defense Fund tries to help organizations become more secure, as well as offering some information for the people seeking information. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a guide on making your communications more secure and less associated with you, which will make it harder, but not necessarily impossible, for a malicious actor to identify you or gain access to your information. Consider, also, that if you have a public library accessible to you, using their computers and networks to do any research or make plans may help anonymize you. Even more so if they offer guest access to the Internet, so that you don't even have a library card number in a system should law enforcement come snooping for those records. (Librarians, we should probably push even more for setting up Tor exit nodes for people looking to access information that may be restricted in their state or may be used as evidence for the "crime" of seeking accurate information, and for the use of Tor browsing as a default.)
In states where abortion remains legal, they are forming alliances to ensure that care remains accessible in their state, and sometimes forming multi-state alliances to ensure that they both remain committed to legal abortion care and in refusing demands from those states that have outlawed abortion for information about medical procedures or extradition of persons who received a legal abortion in their states.
The consequences of elections are rarely this obvious to the observer, but this decision comes because of the same party that tried to overturn a democratic election. The consistency of the Republican Party is that if it gives them power, or gives white rich cishet men power over everyone else, they will do it and work even more toward such a result. They are antithetical to the continuation of the United States as a representative democracy and a republic. Anyone who takes their badge should never be allowed near the levers of power. Any of them who attempt to masquerade under the badge of the Democratic party should be expelled and not allowed near the levers of power.
As for the Democrats, a continued insistence that the rules must be followed and cannot be changed in the face of an opposition that has been saying and acting that the rules do not apply to them is a losing strategy. Replace those who would fundraise on the issue rather than taking action with those who will take action first and then fundraise on their successes. Whatever moment they are waiting for that is their red line has already passed, and as citizens, it is now our job to press all of our elected representatives to take real action. Any excuse they have for not taking action is unacceptable. The institutions that have been so skillfully used to ensure the minority gets to dictate the policy decisions and keep the country moving toward control by theocrats, oligarchs, and fascists cannot be allowed to continue supporting that agenda. Whatever the personal opinion of Democrats might be of the opposing party's members, even if they're genial and cordial, they are working toward and supporting undemocratic ends. Do not stand by and claim it can't be helped.
(The hyperlinks for the post come from my reading list, almost all of whom are people who could be forced into birth. For some of them, their jurisdictions have not yet followed this pathway. For others, the nightmare has already arrived. Stay safe, as best you can.)
no subject
Date: 2022-06-26 08:20 pm (UTC)