Hey, there! Log in / Register

Protests against decision to overturn Roe v. Wade at State House this evening

6 p.m. on the State House steps.

Also 5 p.m. at the Holy Name Rotary in West Roxbury.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Robert Rubin credits Monica Lewinsky with distracting the American public from the global economic collapse in 1998, giving time for banks to resolve their liquidity problems. I wonder if that's happening here; get the press covering abortion so that the economy is no longer the leading story for a while.

up
Voting closed 41

The leak which undermines the Supreme Court was made in an effort to intimidate the justices.

There no sweeping the economic issue under the rug, everyone sees it, every time you take you wallet out.

up
Voting closed 45

anons don’t have the courage of their convictions.

up
Voting closed 16

… were any less anonymous.

up
Voting closed 40

Intimidate them with what? Public opinion? A majority of the American public supports upholding Roe.

up
Voting closed 9

Plenty of people with experience as clerks, reporters, etc, for the Court are suggesting it's actually being leaked by an anti-abortion staffer. The theory is that Roberts may have been working on a more moderate position (severe restrictions instead of a full dissolution) since he isn't on the draft, and may have been getting too close to convincing one of the other conservative judges - leaving the court with a 4-2-3 split instead of a full 6-3.

By leaking the draft, any change in anyone's vote at this point will look like the judge caved to public pressure instead of following the legal reasoning, even if the reasoning in this case is extremely specious.

up
Voting closed 3

How about this for a wacky theory: right-wingers are posting on local blogs to try and turn discussions of womens' rights into complaints about the economy, because they know that they can't actually defend the Supreme Court's decision here so might as well change the topic?

up
Voting closed 104

State House is a State building. Massachusetts has protections in place.

JFK and O'Neil are federal buildings. Those are the people causing the trouble. Go there.

If you are going to protest McDonald's don't picket a Burger King.

up
Voting closed 41

When Roe goes, it's going to go down to the state level governments to set laws. It's worth reminding the folks at the State House that they should not for a second think anything but full throated support of womens' rights is acceptable. Furthermore, MA state legislators should be encouraged to go the extra step like Connecticut is, adding EXTRA protections for both patients and providers for when Texas decides they can sue some doctor in New Haven and have him extradited down to be hung at the alamo for crimes again jesus.

up
Voting closed 103

As one of my best English professors eloquently explained when correcting my use of "hung" versus "hanged":

A condemned man may be hung, but is hanged.

up
Voting closed 16

How about full-throated support of the human right to life?
You know - including the up to 1,000,000 pre-born women & men killed annually in the USA these last 49 years?

up
Voting closed 19

Let's see some support for the human right to life in terms of support for prenatal and postnatal care, child nutrition, full parental leave, and full access to healthcare to all regardless of economic ability.

While we're at it, plenty of studies show that the absolute best way to reduce the number of abortions is to provide better access to contraceptives and sex education. If you really want to stop abortions, why not start with what actually works?

up
Voting closed 137

Nice strawman. Here I was thinking Ray Bolger was dead.

https://www.eduardosuastegui.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/strawman.jpg

up
Voting closed 3

What are you actually doing to support "the human right to life" other than banning abortion? I'm not seeing any action being taken here. And if abortion is ending a human life, surely you agree that we should take any action possible to reduce its occurrence, even if that means funding more contraception distribution and sex education, right?

up
Voting closed 28

Rights don't exist based on some specious burden of proof that I need to do something to justify them or that my small efforts need to meet your approval.as "enough".

Rights exist. We are each endowed with them from the moment of our creation. They are inalienable - not subject to whether someone else has paid enough for them.

Rights exist - independent of what the person can or cannot do to make use of them.

When has it ever been appropriate for Rights to have to wait to be declared or acknowledged until some other party (that usually already has the same Right codified for themselves) agrees that sufficient preconditions and safeguards are in place?

up
Voting closed 2

Rights exist. We are each endowed with them from the moment of our creation. They are inalienable ...

This has only ever been true when the society and legal structure you live in recognizes those rights. When it doesn't, assertions of those rights is academic, and won't save you from society's disagreement. The Declaration of Independence made its assertions with the support of powerful interests. If abortion, or any of our rights, loses the support of enough powerful interests, look out.

That we are so close to losing what should be a fundamental right is a frightening commentary on our society.

up
Voting closed 8

If you actually believe that unborn fetuses are people who have rights, you (and the right in general) would be doing way more to reduce the number of abortions than just trying to ban abortion (which we know doesn't actually reduce abortions, it just increases the number of people who die from getting abortions).

The fact that you're more focused on banning abortion rather than trying to promote any number of easy and relatively cheap options to reduce the number of abortions tells me that this isn't actually about "protecting rights of the unborn" as much as it is "increasing control over women".

up
Voting closed 18

Where is the full-throated support for the welfare of children forced to be born to parents who don't want them? Where is the funding for childcare, early education, parental leave, and contraception to keep people out of poverty? Where is the full-throated support for reducing guns on our streets, for improving sex education, and for making sure our children have a safe community to grow up in? Where is the full-throated support for protecting women who's pregnancies will kill them, or who would be forced to carry an nonviable fetus to term, resulting in long-term mental anguish?

Pro-choice supporters want to drastically reduce the number of abortions that happen each year by addressing the issues that lead to abortions being needed in the first place, but ultimately believes in the personal freedom a woman has for her body. Why do we not see "pro-life" activists and politicians screaming for more funding for childcare, medical care, and for social programs to help children? Where are the calls for reducing gun violence, for expanding sex education and mental healthcare, and for guaranteed parental leave? Republicans pushing for the banning of abortion aren't "pro-life", they're just "pro-fetus".

Nobody wants an abortion. Its a horrifying choice to need to make, but sometimes, it needs to be made. Lets keep the personal autonomy for women enshrined in law while tackling the issues that make women seek out abortions in the first place.

up
Voting closed 72

Can we leave guns out of this?

up
Voting closed 3

This only makes sense if there's some very prolific time-travelling serial killers out there. Let us all hope that is not the case!

In the meantime, I'm going to worry about actual people here and now.

up
Voting closed 55

Does it help you avoid confronting the issue if you say "pre-born females & males" instead? Or "girls and boys"?
They're actual human beings, actual people - here and now. They happen to be in the womb, but still have human rights whether you acknowledge them or not.
---
...and I said up to a million killed annually in the USA since Roe v Wade, because there are different numbers from different entities and I decided to keep to the lower numbers that more people agree on to reduce the risk of overinflating either numbers or passions. If you don't like 50,000,000 in fifty years, we can go with 63,000,000.

up
Voting closed 9

fetuses.
zygotes, even.

think of it this way: to get a passport, or a drivers' license you present a birth certificate. not a conception certificate.

up
Voting closed 21

… to injure or kill to bring about your “pre born” ? What about the men involved? How do you think you are helping “pre born” by forcing their potential mothers to give birth to them?

Admit it, women are just breeding stock to you. Including those “preborn” women you pretend to care about.

up
Voting closed 29

if the right to lifers gave a shit, they'd support a system to make sure these children could thrive. and yet they don't, because they don't actually give a shit about the prospects of that child. they only want control over others.

and on religious grounds, i have never understood why this is any of the believers' concern. if this is a sin, then let your god punish me. the hubris shown by the religious right - that they are god's avatars on earth - is beyond insane.

up
Voting closed 16

LMFAO

1,000,000 fully-formed humans that have a right to vote, can serve in the military, need to pay taxes, etc are killed in the womb each year? GTFO.

That’s some deranged shit.

up
Voting closed 29

saying you're a religious nut-job."

up
Voting closed 22

are probably responsible for half of those "pre born deaths" and I'll tell ya sorry, not sorry!

(jerk off mottion)

up
Voting closed 11

Cool, Rob, let me know when you've also marched and donated and pressured your lawmakers into making blood donation mandatory, making organ donation non-optional, etc. 113,000 people are waiting for a lifesaving organ right now in this country but unless somebody specifically opts in to a program and their next of kin doesn't throw a fit, perfectly useful and good organs go into the ground every single day. And those are DEAD PEOPLE.

This country, except for the issue of abortion, seems to have no issue with upholding the right to bodily autonomy. Nobody has the right to force another person to bodily support them. Including fetuses.

up
Voting closed 5

You may have missed that no one in JFK or O'Neil was involved with this decision or can do anything about it.

Whereas the people in the State House are at least capable of passing laws that can do something to improve things for the people of this state.

It also makes for a better backdrop for public coverage of the event, which is one of the major things a protest like this is trying to accomplish.

up
Voting closed 71

Abortion rights are already protected under MA state law

up
Voting closed 2

See, for instance, Connecticut's protections for abortion providers from cases originating from other states.

up
Voting closed 7

JFK and O'Neil are almost exclusively executive branch offices, with Sens. Warren and Markey having offices there being the only legislative branch offices. So, looks like there's no judicial branch offices, the people causing the trouble. Executive branch, I'd imagine, is upset about the upcoming decision.

Maybe people also want the state to continue to show support for abortion rights? Maybe they're at the State House because it's across from a large park and an icon of MA democracy, where many other protests take place? Not everything is protesters being ill-informed.

up
Voting closed 32

So maybe the most appropriate place for a protest would be at Fan Pier in front of the Federal Courthouse; correct level of government and branch as well.

State House is easier to get to, though.

up
Voting closed 5

Boston Common can hold a TON of people. And most of the time, unless they've blocked off Beacon street, these things are usually held in the Common and not on the statehouse steps.

(of course this is pending how big of a gathering they expect, some smaller ones are on the steps).

But to be fair.. as Americans and Bostonians, we like to think Boston Common is where our country started. I mean Boston *IS* the home of the American Revolution. IN some weird way, our protests should be on the same site, no matter what it is about.

At least this is how I gathered it after going to so many marches.

Plus I am sure its easier for the city for people & crowd management. It takes a lot of people to fill Boston common (vs Copley Square, Government Center, etc)

up
Voting closed 11

Dr. King spoke on the Common under the gleam of the State House.

Wars have been protested, Foreign Dignitaries honored, and Popes have prayed. A first year student even understands that area is kinda special for a number of reasons.

Seriously, what's gotten in to you lately?

up
Voting closed 22

… is as shallow as your penchant for junk food is deep.

up
Voting closed 17

you’re probably right about that.

though, i might picket at a McDonald’s that uses beef from a farm whose animal safety practices i am protesting.

up
Voting closed 7

...get to pick the venue.

up
Voting closed 6

That there is some pro-level MAGAt baiting.

up
Voting closed 24

One may say

up
Voting closed 16

I can't believe in this day and age, women's bodies and decisions and inability to progress 100% are controlled by government which is stilled controlled by Republican, conservative, out of touch male majority lawmakers .

up
Voting closed 3

...but how can you NOT believe it?

up
Voting closed 3