Lifestyles of the rich and unhinged

a reply to: network dude

Anyone who follows American politics knows that it's up to the state.

That doesn't mean the Republicans won't try. It's written clear as day in their playbook to make it their top priority for public health. And they'll go try to persuade each state.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: network dude

Anyone who follows American politics knows that it's up to the state.

That doesn't mean the Republicans won't try. It's written clear as day in their playbook to make it their top priority for public health. And they'll go try to persuade each state.

It's also written in the decision that took abortion from the federal umbrella and moved it to the states, since it's not mentioned anywhere in the COTUS. So just like Biden doesn't have the right to absolve student loan debt, Trump won't have the right to federalize abortion. But if you can use a dead baby like a cudgel, I suppose that's what you will do. Try to limit the spatter effect.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: network dude

Anyone who follows American politics knows that it's up to the state.

That doesn't mean the Republicans won't try. It's written clear as day in their playbook to make it their top priority for public health. And they'll go try to persuade each state.

It's also written in the decision that took abortion from the federal umbrella and moved it to the states, since it's not mentioned anywhere in the COTUS. So just like Biden doesn't have the right to absolve student loan debt, Trump won't have the right to federalize abortion. But if you can use a dead baby like a cudgel, I suppose that's what you will do. Try to limit the spatter effect.

That's not true.

What the SCOTUS said was, "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision." and, "We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives."

People's elected representatives can mean either State or Federal representatives. In the absence of any Federal laws either protecting or prohibiting abortion (which is the current status), it is left to the individual states to make their own laws, which many states did, almost immediately.

However, there's nothing in the SCOTUS ruling that prohibits the Federal government from passing laws on the matter--either pro or con. If the Federal government passed a law that outlawed abortion everywhere, that would supersede state laws. That would mean that even those states that wanted to allow abortion couldn't. Conversely, if the Federal government passed a law that protected abortion, even those states that wanted to outlaw abortion couldn't.

As long as there's a Democrat POTUS in the White House, he/she would almost undoubtedly veto any Federal law outlawing abortion. That would mean that it could only be enacted into law if there was a supermajority in both legislative branches that could override a Presidential veto. If you assume that a Republican POTUS would not veto a federal abortion ban law, then it could be passed with a simple majority in the House and (theoretically) 60 votes in the Senate. If the Senate could figure out a way to bypass the 60-vote rule (and I'm sure some of them would try) then it could pass into law with only 51 votes in the Senate.

This is what Nancy Pelosi is referring to.

a reply to: network dude

This supercedes, the man everyone is so obsessed over. It's about what the republican party as a whole has been trying to achieve for decades now.

What's to stop the Republicans from declaring abortion a major public health crisis? Or shifting federal funding from one state to another because they don't align with the values of the administration?

The precedent has been set. The goals have been laid out. As hyperbolic Pelosi is being, because it's her job to play political theater, pro life advocates would read the mission statement and feel awkward about it. Would you blame them?

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: network dude

Anyone who follows American politics knows that it's up to the state.

That doesn't mean the Republicans won't try. It's written clear as day in their playbook to make it their top priority for public health. And they'll go try to persuade each state.

It's also written in the decision that took abortion from the federal umbrella and moved it to the states, since it's not mentioned anywhere in the COTUS. So just like Biden doesn't have the right to absolve student loan debt, Trump won't have the right to federalize abortion. But if you can use a dead baby like a cudgel, I suppose that's what you will do. Try to limit the spatter effect.

That's not true.

What the SCOTUS said was, "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision." and, "We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives."

People's elected representatives can mean either State or Federal representatives. In the absence of any Federal laws either protecting or prohibiting abortion (which is the current status), it is left to the individual states to make their own laws, which many states did, almost immediately.

However, there's nothing in the SCOTUS ruling that prohibits the Federal government from passing laws on the matter--either pro or con. If the Federal government passed a law that outlawed abortion everywhere, that would supersede state laws. That would mean that even those states that wanted to allow abortion couldn't. Conversely, if the Federal government passed a law that protected abortion, even those states that wanted to outlaw abortion couldn't.

As long as there's a Democrat POTUS in the White House, he/she would almost undoubtedly veto any Federal law outlawing abortion. That would mean that it could only be enacted into law if there was a supermajority in both legislative branches that could override a Presidential veto. If you assume that a Republican POTUS would not veto a federal abortion ban law, then it could be passed with a simple majority in the House and (theoretically) 60 votes in the Senate. If the Senate could figure out a way to bypass the 60-vote rule (and I'm sure some of them would try) then it could pass into law with only 51 votes in the Senate.

This is what Nancy Pelosi is referring to.

How could you determine she meant all that while watching her eyebrows and dentures?

I mean, it’s a little distracting watching a ventriloquist dummy speak about serious issues.

a reply to: Boomer1947

I don't believe any such law would get passed within the next four years. Too many hoops to jump through. But, again, it's the small steps that matter to the GOP as a whole.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: JinMI

The debate over the pro life / choice is like beating a dead horse at this point.
The bigger issue is that the Trump administration if elected, has set their top goal on using federal powers to crack down on abortion. Isn't there bigger health issues at hand in the US that the federal government can pursue?

How can anti Trump groups prove a new Trump administration if elected, has set their top goal on using federal powers to crack down on abortion?? This would be a major breakthrough!! 🤤