Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It’s about the authoritarian right’s desire to compel conformity and punish dissent.
There isnt. But then the left may be forced to compromise to end late term in their states. To many of us aborting a baby at birth is Murder when the baby is healty.I hate to be the devils advocate here, but what's stopping it from being totally banned?
All the Supreme Court can do is rule if it's constitutionally protected or not which it isn't. They cannot say its exclusively a states right because nowhere in the Constitution is abortion mentioned. They may say it's for states to decide now, but if there is ever a super majority of Republicans in Congress with a Republican President, then what would be stopping them from making federal law against all abortions?
LiesOverturning Roe isn’t about ‘saving babies.’
Overturning Roe isn’t about “states’ rights.”
It’s about the authoritarian right’s desire to compel conformity and punish dissent.
It’s about more government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty.
That Senate Republicans would seek to enact Federal legislation to ‘ban’ abortion is proof of that.
Agreed it's not about "states rights" - through if it's overturned States can ban it, if the people there decide to....but so can the Feds. That's all Mitch was saying. The Feds can also make it completely legal at all stages if they decide to.Clearly not.
‘Abortion’ has nothing to do with “states’ rights”; overturning Roe has nothing to do with “states’ rights.”
That Republicans would seek to ‘ban’ abortion via Federal law is further proof that for the authoritarian right it’s about increasing the size and power of government at the expense of individual liberty.
‘Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said a national abortion ban could be "possible" if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
[…]
In an interview with USA Today published on Saturday…McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said Thursday that a national ban on the procedure would be "possible" if the court overturns the case.’
National Abortion Ban Possible if Roe v. Wade Overturned: Mitch McConnell
Many conservative states already have "trigger laws" in place that would ban abortions immediately or soon after if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.www.newsweek.com
Again, Republicans aren’t going to stop with just overturning Roe.
I want a return of power to the states. The Fed needs to lose most of its power. While I think late term abortion is Barbarism, I dont want to tell New York how to live.
However, they are going batshit crazy thinking they should tell us how to live.
Overturning Roe changes Nothing in their states.
I hate to be the devils advocate here, but what's stopping it from being totally banned?
All the Supreme Court can do is rule if it's constitutionally protected or not which it isn't. They cannot say its exclusively a states right because nowhere in the Constitution is abortion mentioned. They may say it's for states to decide now, but if there is ever a super majority of Republicans in Congress with a Republican President, then what would be stopping them from making federal law against all abortions?
Yep next up gay marriageThey won't stop with Roe.
Shows what they are today. If they were worth a damn a compromise could be had. Say ok 15 weeks its legal after that only for the life of tje mother via doctor.In fact, it gives them more leverage to go batshit crazy on their abortion protections, as we have already seen.
Shows what they are today. If they were worth a damn a compromise could be had. Say ok 15 weeks its legal after that only for the life of tje mother via doctor.
They dont want compromise. Its my way or highway. This is also of the side at conception.
I say overturn and let the chips fall where they may. Really changes nothing but maybe a drive for some to abort.
States over the Fed.
Yep next up gay marriage
Agreed. To me 15 weeks for whatever reason is the compromise, with LIFE of mother after that, not just health. Also rape is covered by the 15 week thing, and I still don't get the addition of incest, considering if the incest was forced the rape thing covers it.
Also, parental notification is required for anyone under 18, or even permission, with rapid legal avenues available of course.
Maybe they should push for a constitutional amendment instead of depending on the government granting them a privilege license.Only to the point of not forcing States to issue SSM licenses. They should be forced to continue to recognize out of State licenses as they currently have to, even if the out of State license doesn't meet the in State requirements for issuance.
Well if they keep statistics, it might be interesting to know how rampant is incest. It always is described separately from rape.
Maybe they should push for a constitutional amendment instead of depending on the government granting them a privilege license.
A license is still a privilege it is not a rightState Marriage licenses can be modified by legislative actions in the States. And we already make States take things like driver's and marriage licenses from other States via the whole full faith and credit thing.
A license is still a privilege it is not a right
There are some states that do not view other state permit holders the same privilege as their citizensI'd take calling it a license if full faith and credit would be applied to State issued concealed carry permits.
There are some states that do not view other state permit holders the same privilege as their citizens
They should but they aren't. You have to follow that states law when you are within that states jurisdiction.Which I think is wrong. If Driver's licenses carry over, so should CCW permits.
