I disagreed with you, and stated my reasoning for doing so. That doesn't constitute me trying to think FOR you, regardless of how that makes you feel. Point is, young people will not be fleeing the US in droves. Young people will be in higher demand than ever here in the US for the next 25 years (according to demographics). Quality of life will be better and more stable because we have more natural resources then everybody else. We're more likely to see young people moving here from other countries unless housing prices keep them out.
I fully disagree. And this comes from my immediate friend group. In the meantime, expect mass youth migration out of red states. I don't think a single friend of mine is staying in Florida, and we even live in a blue bubble.
I could definitely see a youth migration out of red states. For sure. I could see youth moving out of the country in the short term, but things are going to get much tougher worldwide over the next few years. North America will be mostly insulated from it. Pretty much everybody else is screwed.
The Supreme Court opinion suggests that fundamental gay rights are on the chopping block next: “Respondents . . . rely on post-Casey decisions like Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges. These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s ‘concept of existence’ prove too much. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history.” For those who don’t know, Lawrence v. Texas was a landmark queer rights case because it struck down laws that criminalized homosexual intercourse. Obergefell v. Hodges is the landmark case that legalized same-gender marriage. And in this opinion, the Court implies that these freedoms are comparable to allowing drug use and prostitution, it explicitly says that these rationales have gone too far, and that these rights are not rooted in American history. The Court is showing its hand and how it views what it perceives to be Court-created rights (abortion, gay marriage, gay sexual intercourse, etc.). Basically, the Court seems to be overturning the framework of substantive due process, which is the doctrine that creates these basic rights, by requiring a historical root—which marginalized people obviously do not have, since, historically speaking, women, queer folk, and people of color did not have equal rights. If abortion rights can be overturned on this logic, so can queer rights (Lawrence, Obergefell), contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut), maybe even interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia).
Decent info on some options via mail. It's in the sex workers subreddit, but it's still good info for anybody who may have a need or want to prepare ahead of time.
Amazon to Reimburse U.S. Employees up to $5000 Who Travel for Abortions https://money.usnews.com/investing/...who-travel-for-treatments-including-abortions
I'm sure they weighed an employee's long-term employment vs the productivity drop from a pregnant/nursing employee vs firing and replacing said employee, and found they would make an overall profit by providing $5k to keep their employee from giving birth. Even the worst entities make good decisions for the wrong reasons.
Sometimes sarcasm isn't intended to be a joke. To splain it to ya, it's a bit ironic to me that so many people are up in arms about women having full control of their bodies and their potential children. Yet, when they do become mothers, somehow the government is supposed to know more than them and do what it thinks best with their child.
Everybody who is saying this now needs to send $500 cash to each person they made fun of in 2015-2020 for being "fearmongers".
