If we codify Roe…SCOTUS will still say its a state right to ban, right?

[Peach45]

Seeing talk of making Roe federal law. But if so, couldnt a state ban still be passed, and SCOTUS would just say again that its a states right and unConstitutional to say the state cant restrict it?

 

[fncceo]

Seeing talk of making Roe federal law. But if so, couldnt a state ban still be passed, and SCOTUS would just say again that its a states right and unConstitutional to say the state cant restrict it?

Yes, they could ignore the federal mandate.

When Carter mandated a 55 MPH freeway speed nationwide, states only went along with it to keep receiving federal highway funds.

But, there really is no reason to speculate. The entire reason for Roe V Wade decision was to relieve politicians from having to make a public vote on the matter.

I don't care who is in Congress, very few politicians are willing to risk a public vote on such a divisive topic.

 

[Moonglow]

Seeing talk of making Roe federal law. But if so, couldnt a state ban still be passed, and SCOTUS would just say again that its a states right and unConstitutional to say the state cant restrict it?

You can still get the morning-after pill.

 

[Rogue AI]

Codifying Roe would only affirm it is not a right, but a legislated privilege.

 

[Ringtone]

Seeing talk of making Roe federal law. But if so, couldnt a state ban still be passed, and SCOTUS would just say again that its a states right and unConstitutional to say the state cant restrict it?

I haven't read Dobbs v. Jackson WHO yet, but I imagine that fncceo is correct. I know how to read case lay, and will get back to you tomorrow if I can.

 

[Ringtone]

Codifying Roe would only affirm it is not a right, but a legislated privilege.

This is also true if federally codified, assuming the decision didn't specify the states' purview over the matter, which is what should be the case logically.

 

[scruffy]

Yes, they could ignore the federal mandate.

When Carter mandated a 55 MPH freeway speed nationwide, states only went along with it to keep receiving federal highway funds.

But, there really is no reason to speculate. The entire reason for Roe V Wade decision was to relieve politicians from having to make a public vote on the matter.

I don't care who is in Congress, very few politicians are willing to risk a public vote on such a divisive topic.

Too fucking bad.

Seems our elected morons are more interested in their own business than the peoples' business.

How about, DON'T PAY THEM till they get it done.

They work for US, not the other way around

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Seeing talk of making Roe federal law. But if so, couldnt a state ban still be passed, and SCOTUS would just say again that its a states right and unConstitutional to say the state cant restrict it?

No.

Federal laws are the supreme law of the land, state laws ‘banning’ abortion would be unenforceable.

And since the Senate represents the states, by codifying the right to privacy in Federal law, the states would have no justification to sue.

Moreover, claims that Congress lacks the authority to codify the right to privacy are devoid of merit, as the Court has upheld the constitutionality of Congress passing measures in defense of citizens’ rights, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, upheld by the Supreme Court in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US.

 

[Rogue AI]

How would a codified Roe be enforced? What Constitutional authority would be invoked to give such a law legal standing? Seems like a non-starter.

 

[BluesLegend]

Abortion will never pass in congress, way too many Dems won't die on that hill.

 

[SweetSue92]

Abortion will never pass in congress, way too many Dems won't die on that hill.

The truth is that because of the science (ironically for libs, "The Party of Science" hahaha), people have grown a lot more uncomfortable with abortion. Generally people back it in the first trimester but not after, say, 15 weeks. So "codifying" Roe v Wade, which horrifyingly allowed abortion right up until birth, would be very difficult, if not next to impossible.

 

[Meathead]

Seeing talk of making Roe federal law. But if so, couldnt a state ban still be passed, and SCOTUS would just say again that its a states right and unConstitutional to say the state cant restrict it?

It would be a classic showdown between branches of government. Which branch prevails is a given.

 

[Batcat]

No.

Federal laws are the supreme law of the land, state laws ‘banning’ abortion would be unenforceable.

And since the Senate represents the states, by codifying the right to privacy in Federal law, the states would have no justification to sue.

Moreover, claims that Congress lacks the authority to codify the right to privacy are devoid of merit, as the Court has upheld the constitutionality of Congress passing measures in defense of citizens’ rights, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, upheld by the Supreme Court in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US.

If Federal Laws are the supreme law of the land how can we have sanctuary cities for illegal aliens and states that allow the use of Federally illegal drugs?

 

[BluesLegend]

The truth is that because of the science (ironically for libs, "The Party of Science" hahaha), people have grown a lot more uncomfortable with abortion. Generally people back it in the first trimester but not after, say, 15 weeks. So "codifying" Roe v Wade, which horrifyingly allowed abortion right up until birth, would be very difficult, if not next to impossible.

This ruling is a blessing. It takes control from the minority extreme left which demands abortion up to the moment of birth and now allows voters in each state to dial abortion back to the first trimester, the norm in other developed countries.

This is a complex, deeply emotional and personal issue. Yes a woman has control over her own body. But that control has limits. A woman can't kill her baby after birth because she doesn't want the baby, everyone agrees. Third trimester, no you can't kill the baby and most agree. Second trimester, does society have a duty to protect the unborn child, I say yes even though it pains me to interfere with a womans right to choose. First trimester, I think people need to STFU and allow women to make their own decision.

None of the above has been possible with the extreme left sick bastards in charge of the issue demanding up to moment of birth abortions.

 

[SweetSue92]

This ruling is a blessing. It takes control from the minority extreme left which demands abortion up to the moment of birth and now allows voters in each state to dial abortion back to the first trimester, the norm in other developed countries.

This is a complex, deeply emotional and personal issue. Yes a woman has control over her own body. But that control has limits. A woman can't kill her baby after birth because she doesn't want the baby, everyone agrees. Third trimester, no you can't kill the baby and most agree. Second trimester, does society have a duty to protect the unborn child, I say yes even though it pains me to interfere with a womans right to choose. First trimester, I think people need to STFU and allow women to make their own decision.

None of the above has been possible with the extreme left sick bastards in charge of the issue demanding up to moment of birth abortions.

You know I don't agree with this, but I can understand where it comes from. Moreover, I think it's the majority opinion among Americans. That's why I don't think abortion is the winner liberals think it is. I don't think most Americans are galvanized by it--but see it as a necessary, but regrettable, option.

 

[skews13]

Codifying Roe would only affirm it is not a right, but a legislated privilege.

Wrong. Once a law is passed by Congress, it is the law of the land. If any part of it fails Court scrutiny, it can simply be amended to get by that scrutiny. The court has no power to make law.

The Congress regulates the court, not the other way around.

 

[skews13]

You know I don't agree with this, but I can understand where it comes from. Moreover, I think it's the majority opinion among Americans. That's why I don't think abortion is the winner liberals think it is. I don't think most Americans are galvanized by it--but see it as a necessary, but regrettable, option.

The overwhelming majority of American support a woman’s right to choose. It’s not even a close call.

 

[Rogue AI]

Wrong. Once a law is passed by Congress, it is the law of the land. If any part of it fails Court scrutiny, it can simply be amended to get by that scrutiny. The court has no power to make law.

The Congress regulates the court, not the other way around.

A law, meaning legislative privilege that can easily be undone. You people are extremely ignorant as the difference between rights and privileges. Affirming abortion is a privilege decimates the notion it was ever a right.

 

[SweetSue92]

The overwhelming majority of American support a woman’s right to choose. It’s not even a close call.

That very much depends on different factors, mostly weeks of pregnancy:

What Americans think about abortion, in 3 charts

Americans overwhelmingly support abortion rights, but vary on the specifics.

www.vox.com

 

[buckeye45_73]

The truth is that because of the science (ironically for libs, "The Party of Science" hahaha), people have grown a lot more uncomfortable with abortion. Generally people back it in the first trimester but not after, say, 15 weeks. So "codifying" Roe v Wade, which horrifyingly allowed abortion right up until birth, would be very difficult, if not next to impossible.

This is true, science is awesome and the left hates it, even calls science white supremacy.