Democrats mislabel Graham’s proposal as abortion ban, allows exceptions for rape, incest, mother's life after 15 weeks

[munkle]

What? Democrats lie?

Democrats mislabel Graham’s proposal as abortion ban

Democrats have reiterated that they're not willing to negotiate their stance on abortion. On Wednesday, Democrat lawmakers came after Senator Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) proposed federal abortion law.

www.oann.com

"Democrats have reiterated that they’re not willing to negotiate their stance on abortion. On Wednesday, Democrat lawmakers came after Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) proposed federal abortion law.

The proposed Bill is an attempt to bridge a political divide on the subject by allowing abortions up to 15-weeks past the point of conception nationwide. The Bill allows exceptions to the time limit for cases of rape, incest and pregnancies that put the mother’s life in jeopardy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accused Graham of trying to outlaw the procedure while she was speaking out against the idea of each state deciding their own policy on the matter."

 

[BULLDOG]

What happened to "let the states decide it"? Graham's bill is a federal bill,

 

[Oddball]

What? Democrats lie?

Democrats mislabel Graham’s proposal as abortion ban

Democrats have reiterated that they're not willing to negotiate their stance on abortion. On Wednesday, Democrat lawmakers came after Senator Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) proposed federal abortion law.

www.oann.com

"Democrats have reiterated that they’re not willing to negotiate their stance on abortion. On Wednesday, Democrat lawmakers came after Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) proposed federal abortion law.

The proposed Bill is an attempt to bridge a political divide on the subject by allowing abortions up to 15-weeks past the point of conception nationwide. The Bill allows exceptions to the time limit for cases of rape, incest and pregnancies that put the mother’s life in jeopardy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accused Graham of trying to outlaw the procedure while she was speaking out against the idea of each state deciding their own policy on the matter."

Of course they mislabeled it....That's what lying asshole progs do.

But Graham and McTurtle know this....The bill was dropped at this point in time to damage as many GOP Senate candidates as possible...Those scheming little fucks don't want to be in the majority.

 

[BULLDOG]

Of course they mislabeled it....That's what lying asshole progs do.

But Graham and McTurtle know this....The bill was dropped at this point in time to damage as many GOP Senate candidates as possible...Those scheming little fucks don't want to be in the majority.

Yep. Looks like you caught us. Lindsey Graham is really a secret Democrat spy, and has been for several years.

 

[Oddball]

Yep. Looks like you caught us. Lindsey Graham is really a secret Democrat spy, and has been for several years.

I didn't say anything anywhere near that that, you fucking sub-imbecile.

Try reading for comprehension some time.

 

[BackAgain]

The parameters proposed by Graham are fairly reasonable. However, it isn’t a federal legislative matter. I assume that Graham knows how to read court decisions. If this bill were ever to pass, the SCOTUS would bitch-slap it out of existence.

 

[BULLDOG]

I didn't say anything anywhere near that that, you fucking sub-imbecile.

Try reading for comprehension some time.

Why else would little Lindsey want to damage as many GOP candidates as possible to prevent becoming the majority? Yep, you caught us fair and square. Little Lindsey is a Democratic spy and has been for years.

 

[1srelluc]

It's just The Turtle trying to scuttle Trump's senate picks.

Thank goodness DeSantis and Wheels blew the dem abortion narrative out of the water....Their two-faced hypocrisy at Martha's Vineyard has cost them big time.

 

[Foxfyre]

The parameters proposed by Graham are fairly reasonable. However, it isn’t a federal legislative matter. I assume that Graham knows how to read court decisions. If this bill were ever to pass, the SCOTUS would bitch-slap it out of existence.

I'm not entirely sure about that. I know Thomas & Alito both believe strongly in states' rights, but the opinions expressed were that abortion law should be enacted by the representatives of the people and not by the Court. They did not specify that it be the state legislatures, but only the elected representatives of the people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Cool, but all the Republicans having been saying it's a state issue.

No, the Constitution so says.

See the 10th amendment.

 

[okfine]

Graham thinks taking away a woman's right to choose in all 50 States is best. But that means in Red States also. Hasn't the GOP pissed off enough middle class women voters already? No wonder McConnell rolled his eyes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What? Democrats lie?

Democrats mislabel Graham’s proposal as abortion ban

Democrats have reiterated that they're not willing to negotiate their stance on abortion. On Wednesday, Democrat lawmakers came after Senator Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) proposed federal abortion law.

www.oann.com

"Democrats have reiterated that they’re not willing to negotiate their stance on abortion. On Wednesday, Democrat lawmakers came after Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) proposed federal abortion law.

The proposed Bill is an attempt to bridge a political divide on the subject by allowing abortions up to 15-weeks past the point of conception nationwide. The Bill allows exceptions to the time limit for cases of rape, incest and pregnancies that put the mother’s life in jeopardy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accused Graham of trying to outlaw the procedure while she was speaking out against the idea of each state deciding their own policy on the matter."

Catherine Foster traps Demorat Raskin about rape/insest exceptions.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Graham thinks taking away a woman's right to choose in all 50 States is best. But that means in Red States also. Hasn't the GOP pissed off enough middle class women voters already? No wonder McConnell rolled his eyes.

Choose what.....murder??????

 

[BackAgain]

I'm not entirely sure about that. I know Thomas & Alito both believe strongly in states' rights, but the opinions expressed were that abortion law should be enacted by the representatives of the people and not by the Court. They did not specify that it be the state legislatures, but only the elected representatives of the people.

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. Pp. 8–79.

https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Dobbs_Opinion.pdf [That is from the syllabus of the case but points to the pages so holding.]

The syllabus concluded:

Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohib- iting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives. Pp. 78–79

Id.

VI
We must now decide what standard will govern if state abortion regulations undergo constitutional challenge and whether the law before us satisfies the appropriate stand- ard.
A
Under our precedents, rational-basis review is the appro- priate standard for such challenges. As we have explained, procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution’s text or in our Nation’s history. See supra, at 8–39.
It follows that the States may regulate abortion for legit- imate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot “substitute their so- cial and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bod- ies.” Ferguson, 372 U. S., at 729–730; see also Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 484–486 (1970); United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152 (1938).

Dobbs op cit., at p 77. (My emphasis.)

Clearly, the court was returning the matter to the people and the states.

 

[Foxfyre]

Cool, but all the Republicans having been saying it's a state issue.

That's because most Patriot Republicans are constitutionalists and take the 10th Amendment seriously. I can't imagine how much better off and unified as a country we would be if most Americans did that.

 

[Foxfyre]

https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Dobbs_Opinion.pdf [That is from the syllabus of the case but points to the pages so holding.]

The syllabus concluded:


Id.

Dobbs op cit., at p 77. (My emphasis.)

Clearly, the court was returning the matter to the people and the states.

Clearly that was the intent, but we have seen again and again where Congress has used other points of the Constitution, sometimes the general welfare clause, or mostly the so-called 'supremacy clause':

Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

to override the states. That's why we have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, a federal minimum wage, the 1974 55 mph federal speed limit mandate, federal regulation of some fuel emissions, OSHA rules, etc. etc. etc. There is no constitutional authority given to Congress for any of those things, but that has not stopped Congress from making it their authority anyway.

So certainly the Republicans will try to codify some regulation of abortion while the Democrats will try to make it a civil right with no restrictions of any kind and even have the taxpayers pay for it. And if they do, it becomes the law of the land until somebody with standing brings a court case that winds up before the Supreme Court again.

 

[BackAgain]

Clearly that was the intent, but we have seen again and again where Congress has used other points of the Constitution, sometimes the general welfare clause, or mostly the so-called 'supremacy clause':

Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

to override the states. That's why we have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, a federal minimum wage, the 1974 55 mph federal speed limit mandate, federal regulation of some fuel emissions, OSHA rules, etc. etc. etc. There is no constitutional authority given to Congress for any of those things, but that has not stopped Congress from making it their authority anyway.

So certainly the Republicans will try to codify some regulation of abortion while the Democrats will try to make it a civil right with no restrictions of any kind and even have the taxpayers pay for it. And if they do, it becomes the law of the land until somebody with standing brings a court case that winds up before the Supreme Court again.

I suspect that this court is less likely to misconstrue the general welfare preface language in the way you noted. That’s a good thing!

I also believe that they are very likely to proceed along the path they blazed with the heroic Dobbs decision. They even put the waffling Chief Justice in his place. Accordingly, if Congress had the audacity to craft some national abortion “rights” law, I have to assume this Court would squash it like a bug.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

The proposed Bill is an attempt to bridge a political divide on the subject by allowing abortions up to 15-weeks past the point of conception nationwide.

That's a very strange position for pro-life Republicans.

Pro lifers believe the fetus is a baby, a human being. To kill the fetus is murder.

But, according to Graham and many other Republicans, it is okay to commit murder within the time limit, six weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks.

What a strange position for Republicans to take. They also believe that the government should be in control of a pregnant woman's health, also odd, What's next, government decides on election results?

 

[MinTrut]

Of course they mislabeled it....That's what lying asshole progs do.

But Graham and McTurtle know this....The bill was dropped at this point in time to damage as many GOP Senate candidates as possible...Those scheming little fucks don't want to be in the majority.

^ Nuclear thread win.

The only people who want the Democrats to win more than the Democrats do?

Republicans like Graham & McConnell.

 

[Foxfyre]

I suspect that this court is less likely to misconstrue the general welfare preface language in the way you noted. That’s a good thing!

I also believe that they are very likely to proceed along the path they blazed with the heroic Dobbs decision. They even put the waffling Chief Justice in his place. Accordingly, if Congress had the audacity to craft some national abortion “rights” law, I have to assume this Court would squash it like a bug.

The Court does not act on its own in these things. It rules on court cases that those who have standing bring before it. So it could be a very long time, if the U.S. Congress passed a universal abortion law of whatever nature, before anyone with standing managed to get a case before the high court.