“We don’t believe those rights should be subjected to majority vote.”

Conservatives are testing new tactics to keep abortion off the ballot following a series of high-profile defeats.

In Arizona, Florida, Nevada and other states, several anti-abortion groups are buying TV and digital ads, knocking on doors and holding events to persuade people against signing petitions to put the issue before voters in November.

Republicans are also appealing to state courts to keep referendums off the ballot, while GOP lawmakers in states including Missouri and Oklahoma are pushing to raise the threshold for an amendment to pass or to make it to the ballot in the first place.

The emerging strategy aims to prevent abortion rights groups from notching their third, and largest, set of ballot measure victories since Roe v. Wade was overturned. And while conservatives celebrated the fall of Roe for returning the question of abortion rights to the people, these efforts are seen as an implicit admission that anti-abortion groups don’t believe they can win at the ballot box — even in red states — and that the best way to keep restrictions on the procedure is to keep voters from weighing in directly.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    11 months ago

    republicans are concerned about two freedoms: the freedom to do what they want, and the freedom to force you to do what they want.

  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    11 months ago

    “I do not want to see abortion put in our constitution,” said Rep. Brad Hudson, a Missouri Republican. “I believe the right to life is a fundamental right that all human beings have and certainly should not be taken away because of a vote by a simple majority.”

    All of them said that each states’ citizens should determine its legality. Could it be that they are fucking liars?

  • blazeknave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    Do the Democrats even try to do a fraction of a percentage of litigation that the anti-voting rights Nazis do?

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    it boggles my mind how anyone with a half a brain and any emotion can check that R box without dying a little inside.

    ignorance is bliss, i spose?

    • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Right-wing authoritarians (ie. conservatives) are more likely to be, in a word, stupid. Well, stupid and/or sociopaths.

      Many of them literally can’t understand the world and therefore need a simplistic political ideology that emphasizes traditions and social norms, or they have dark triad personality traits and need a political ideology that centers around hurting the ones they don’t like.

      Sources

      In the present research (N = 675), we focus on the relationship between the dark side of human personality and political orientation and extremism, respectively, in the course of a presidential election where the two candidates represent either left-wing or right-wing political policies. Narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and everyday sadism were associated with right-wing political orientation, whereas narcissism and psychopathy were associated with political extremism. Moreover, the relationships between personality and right-wing political orientation and extremism, respectively, were relatively independent from each other.

      We found eleven significant correlations between conservative [Moral Intuition Survey] judgments and the Dark Triad – all at significance level of p<.00001 – and no significant correlations between liberal [Moral Intuition Survey] judgments and the Dark Triad. We believe that these results raise provocative moral questions about the personality bases of moral judgments. In particular, we propose that because the Short-D3 measures three “dark and antisocial” personality traits, our results raise some prima facie worries about the moral justification of some conservative moral judgments

      Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

      We report longitudinal data in which we assessed the relationships between intelligence and support for two constructs that shape ideological frameworks, namely, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). Participants (N = 375) were assessed in Grade 7 and again in Grade 12. Verbal and numerical ability were assessed when students entered high school in Grade 7. RWA and SDO were assessed before school graduation in Grade 12. After controlling for the possible confounding effects of personality and religious values in Grade 12, RWA was predicted by low g (β = -.16) and low verbal intelligence (β = -.18). SDO was predicted by low verbal intelligence only (β = -.13). These results are discussed with reference to the role of verbal intelligence in predicting support for such ideological frameworks and some comments are offered regarding the cognitive distinctions between RWA and SDO.

      Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States’ universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores.

      Right-wing ideologies offer well-structured and ordered views about society that preserve traditional societal conventions and norms (e.g., Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). Such ideological belief systems are particularly attractive to individuals who are strongly motivated to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity in preference for simplicity and predictability (Jost et al., 2003; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011). Theoretically, individuals with lower mental abilities should be attracted by right-wing social-cultural ideologies because they minimize complexity and increase perceived control (Heaven, Ciarrochi, & Leeson, 2011; Stankov, 2009). Conversely, individuals with greater cognitive skills are better positioned to understand changing and dynamic societal contexts, which should facilitate open-minded, relatively left-leaning attitudes (Deary et al., 2008a; Heaven et al., 2011; McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen, & Keyes, 1999). Lower cognitive abilities therefore draw people to strategies and ideologies that emphasize what is presently known and considered acceptable to make sense and impose order over their environment. Resistance to social change and the preservation of the status quo regarding societal traditions—key principles underpinning right-wing social-cultural ideologies—should be particularly appealing to those wishing to avoid uncertainty and threat.

      Indeed, the empirical literature reveals negative relations between cognitive abilities and right-wing social-cultural attitudes, including right-wing authoritarian (e.g., Keiller, 2010; McCourt et al., 1999), socially conservative (e.g., Stankov, 2009; Van Hiel et al., 2010), and religious attitudes (e.g., Zuckerman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013).

      With Donald Trump the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee for the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, speculations of why Trump resonates with many Americans are widespread-as are suppositionsof whether, independent of party identification, people might vote for Hillary Clinton. The present study, using a sample of American adults (n=406), investigated whether two ideological beliefs, namely, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) uniquely predicted Trump supportand voting intentions for Clinton. Cognitive ability as a predictor of RWA and SDO was also tested. Path analyses, controlling for political party identification,revealed that higher RWA and SDO uniquely predicted more favorable attitudes of Trump, greater intentions to vote for Trump, and lower intentions to vote for Clinton. Lower cognitive ability predicted greater RWA and SDO and indirectly predicted more favorable Trump attitudes, greater intentions to vote for Trump and lower intentionsto vote for Clinton.

      In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.

    • centof@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      MAGAs are rebelling against the notion that they are not a privileged group. They feel like it’s the libs (and the ‘fakenews’) fault that they aren’t succeeding.

      If those pesky libs didn’t try to treat everyone the same (even the blacks and the LGBTs) they would still feel like they are the special important group like they did in the good old days.

      They feel attacked at the mere notion they might not be inherently better than disadvantaged groups. Ultimately, they are hiding from the uncomfortable truth that they are just as shitty as everyone else. They’re not special. But Trump makes them feel special.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s propaganda. It always is. No one is the villan in their own story, the media they consume tells them they’re the oppressed ones and so they become the “hero” when they fight oppression.

      Anything the Republicans do that is shitty gets spun or completely ignored by the propagandists. There are no right wingers who think they’re doing a bad thing by voting R, they think they’re saving America…

      Thanks Rupert fucking Murdock. I can’t wait for you to join Kissinger.

  • unmagical@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    As long as there’re conservatives on the ballot there’s abortion on the ballot.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Remember, they see family values as their ability to conform others against their will to the household family model.

    A conservative utopia is a single family home in which no escape lays for the children and mother and they are completely at the command, mercy, and whim of the authority of the household head.

    Policy which disempowers abusers ability to extort compliance from others will always attract the ire of the right in the west. It is geopolitical realism in the household, there are no sovereign states besides the world leaders, only pieces which the leaders may trade and cajole at their leisure, and any attempt to uproot this “reality” is idealism and should be treated as idiocy, then persecuted if the gaslighting fails.

  • ME5SENGER_24@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    All laws that impact our rights should be up for a vote. Then after X number of years they should be back on the ballot to see if the public opinion has changed

    • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      they should be back on the ballot to see if the public opinion has changed

      Not without mandatory voting, but sure.

      If it’s difficult to whip up enthusiasm for a second round of political fervor, and it is, then this just ends up being a vector for attack.

  • vexikron@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Does anyone remember the phrase ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ from the 90s?

    That sure, uh, worked out well…