States would decide on their own abortion laws. Really?

[Uncensored2008]

You need a new boogie man like we need to stop referring to rush.

Rush is dead.

Fuhrer Soros probably is too, but your Reich ain't going to admit it.

 

[Penelope]

So something crossed my mind today: Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone. Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states. Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks. Fine.

My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now? Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions? And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?

I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right. What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way? So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?

the bible is the rule of the land. Welcome to the taliban.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

I don't disagree with that. My question is what would stop the GOP from making it illegal for any kind of abortions. Point being that this argument it would be left up to the states could be temporary. It may very well lead to a total outlaw of abortions.

Wrong. 10th amendment. To put it another way, where in the Constitution do you see anything that gives the federal government authority to regulate abortion? The 10th amendment is not just a suggestion. It's the law of the land that any power not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution is reserved for the states.

 

[task0778]

My question is what would stop the GOP from making it illegal for any kind of abortions.

Is that legally possible? Yeah, I guess so if you have a repub Senate with 60 votes and all 60 will support the measure, and a repub House, and a repub president too. Until that happens, it ain't possible. No democrat is going to support a total national ban on abortions.

My take right now: the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade, saying that abortions are not a constitutional right. The US Congress will fail to find enough common ground to pass any abortion legislation, thus leaving the matter up to the individual states. BUT - I think too many states will go overboard on the issue and put a total ban on abortions and their constituencies won't like that, and so in the not too distant future some of those state legislatures and governors will be voted out of office and the democrats will change those laws and back and forth it'll go. Maybe eventually there will be a national abortion law but I'm not seeing that anytime soon.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong. 10th amendment. To put it another way, where in the Constitution do you see anything that gives the federal government authority to regulate abortion? The 10th amendment is not just a suggestion. It's the law of the land that any power not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution is reserved for the states.

It doesn't mention marriage either but the court ruled all states must allow and accept gay marriages. The Constitution says Congress shall make no laws respecting or denying religion, but you can't say the name Jesus Christ in a public school funded by local taxpayers without a threat from the ACLU. Where in the Constitution does is say the federal government has the right to threaten your job and actually have you fired for not taking a shot you don't want or maybe don't need? I used to be a truck driver. Where in the Constitution does it say the feds can have jurisdiction over state laws? They do. I know because I was pulled over twice for not wearing my seat belt. Our state law says it's a secondary offense and the police can't pull you over just for not wearing a seat belt..... but they can for a truck driver because we are regulated by the federal government regardless what the states laws are.

So the 10th has it's limitations as well because it says the powers (not laws) not delegated to the federal government belong to the state. That's why we have all kinds of federal laws not in the Constitution that apply to all states.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is that legally possible? Yeah, I guess so if you have a repub Senate with 60 votes and all 60 will support the measure, and a repub House, and a repub president too. Until that happens, it ain't possible. No democrat is going to support a total national ban on abortions.

They'll need 66 to override the veto that would absolutely occur.

When Mitch made his claim, he was just campaigning for the democrats - there is no truth to it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Is that legally possible? Yeah, I guess so if you have a repub Senate with 60 votes and all 60 will support the measure, and a repub House, and a repub president too. Until that happens, it ain't possible. No democrat is going to support a total national ban on abortions.

I don't think it would happen either. But the possibility still exists down the road.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the bible is the rule of the land. Welcome to the taliban.

If you actually believe that abortion is rejected on religious grounds only. But I'm sure a lot of non-religious people just feel like it's murder from a moral point of view less than religious.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Soon, coming to a red state near you. No gay marriage, no gay butt sex, no trannies using the ladies rooms, no abortions, no even going to another state to get one, etc...what else?

You know what? I wish you guys would use states rights to opt out of Obamacare, Medicare and Social Security. Be gone with you.

It sounds like you support my idea of dividing the country into two countries instead. Welcome aboard!!!

 

[Penelope]

I can tell you stories of other RC, and one had 3 abortions and she still received communion.

They don't as you for your name of anything. If the republicans get in, we understand that it will go to the taliban,

Sass you father and it death to you.

If you actually believe that abortion is rejected on religious grounds only. But I'm sure a lot of non-religious people just feel like it's murder from a moral point of view less than

 

[Penelope]

I can tell you stories of other RC, and one had 3 abortions and she still received communion.

They don't as you for your name of anything. If the republicans get in, we understand that it will go to the taliban,

Sass you father and it death to you.

No, I'm for the United States of American, but it won't be that way long, when the republincans take care, it will either be you poor or your rich.

 

[Penelope]

they will have ghettos where all the poorer people live, fly over, hear about it.

 

[alang1216]

Because different justices interpret the constitution different ways. You see the argument all the time when it comes to guns. The left claims that firearms are only protected if you are in a militia and the right claims it's a protection for all people.

As for the nomination of judges that is left to the President and Senate. They get to choose the nominee, not us. Our only control is who we vote for in the Senate and for President.

Unless the Senate refuses to vote on the President's nominee. That seems to indicate our vote for president is ignored.

 

[alang1216]

There is no litmus test, though you Nazis want one. No one lied - except you - both justices refused to take a loyalty oath to your Reich. You demanded that they swear allegiance to the most sacred and holy ritual infant sacrifice, they refused to kiss your ring.

Kav and Comy both said RvW was established precedent that should be respected. Until they were confirmed of course.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

It doesn't mention marriage either but the court ruled all states must allow and accept gay marriages. The Constitution says Congress shall make no laws respecting or denying religion, but you can't say the name Jesus Christ in a public school funded by local taxpayers without a threat from the ACLU. Where in the Constitution does is say the federal government has the right to threaten your job and actually have you fired for not taking a shot you don't want or maybe don't need? I used to be a truck driver. Where in the Constitution does it say the feds can have jurisdiction over state laws? They do. I know because I was pulled over twice for not wearing my seat belt. Our state law says it's a secondary offense and the police can't pull you over just for not wearing a seat belt..... but they can for a truck driver because we are regulated by the federal government regardless what the states laws are.

So the 10th has it's limitations as well because it says the powers (not laws) not delegated to the federal government belong to the state. That's why we have all kinds of federal laws not in the Constitution that apply to all states.

You're not wrong if you're arguing that all of those are examples of federal over-reach that lack Constitutional support. Two more examples are the federal Department of Education, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. People have just gotten so used to these federal agencies being ever present that it's hard to imagine a time before they existed. But there is no Constitutional authority for either to exist, and both of those bloated bureaucracies that cost the taxpayers billions of dollars each year should be axed, hopefully by a future president that runs as a fiscal and constitutional conservative AND actually governs that way.

As for your OSHA vaccine mandate example, the Supreme Court actually struck that down, so at least that example of federal overreach was reigned in.

As for the trucking example, the purported Constitutional authority for the federal government to issue and enforce the FMCSRs and HMRs is the Commerce Clause. But that's probably the most misapplied section of the entire Constitution, as the federal government almost always tries to justify unconstitutional federal overreach by invoking the Commerce Clause. Those attempts have been shot down many times, but it's also gone unchallenged many times, and also upheld a few times involving rather tenuous applicability.

As for the topic at hand, I don't envision Congress passing any federal abortion legislation in the foreseeable future, given that the forthcoming SCOTUS decision (if consistent with the leaked draft) clearly spells out the absence of Constitutional support for a federal position on abortion. Any such legislation would be ripe for immediate challenge to the Supreme Court.

 

[daveman]

I don't accept your premise of what a fertilized egg is. Being human, IMHO, is defined by our brains not our DNA.

Well, that sure makes it easier to justify killing people, doesn't it?

 

[daveman]

Except for attempts to make it harder for clinics to operate without a medical justification.

Gosh. Medical procedures require a medical justification. Oh, the humanity.

 

[Coyote]

Well, that sure makes it easier to justify killing people, doesn't it?

If a person (clearly evil and mad) was standing before a huge fire holding an infant in one hand and a test tube with an embryo in tbe other, and threatened to chuck them in…you can only save one…which would it be and why?

 

[Coyote]

Every attempt to make abortion clinics safer has been met with howls of outrage from leftists.

You don't want it safer, and you damn sure don't want it rare.

Are they unsafe?

 

[Failzero]

Just don’t go back to Oklahoma if you go murder your baby or wife in California. You’ll burn here ya pedo lib commy

Ditto Far left & Left think they can have Sanctuary States for Illegals ( but not Guns )