What am I missing with regard to SCOTUS roe v wade thing?

So the SCOTUS ruled that Roe v Wade wasn't protected in the COTUS. So all abortion laws would be decided at the state level.
For better or worse, that's the new law. No longer is abortion constitutionally protected. Now each state will have to vote on the laws they enact regarding abortion. So now comes the conundrum.

What is anyone going to do to change that? The only thing I can think of at the federal level, would be a constitutional amendment. Which has a process, and would be the correct venue for this type of change. None of that deals with anyone's individual thoughts on abortion. You can literally put any other topic in place of the word "abortion" and reach the same conclusions. SCOTUS said "X" isn't protected by the COTUS, period. Now if you want "X" to be protected, you make an amendment. And if it's a popular issue that others want, super, you get the votes, and do the process. Sure it takes time, but anything worth having, is worth working for.

So what do democrats mean when they claim they are "running on abortion"? Perhaps in their respective states, but not federally. That ship sailed. As with most threads I do asking a question, often it's never answered, but this one is important. Please, for those of us who just don't get what the plan is, could you spell it out a bit clearer? What is it that "politicians" will do regarding abortion at the federal level, if it's not a constitutional amendment?

eta:
I don't usually do this, but if you post off topic garbage, I'll report it. Please don't, make your own thread.

I think you're yelling into the void. I don't expect any of the posters that scream for abortion "rights" to actually have a coherent argument against what you stated above!

Like the student loan forgiveness, they don't understand how the U.S. Constitution works and buy all the lies and promises their Masters promise them.

After the election, Democrats in office no longer have the need to make empty promises. Their base blames Republicans when they don't get their way.

It's an easy strategy the Repubs should take ahold of. Promise Americans the moon and blame Democrats when the moon isn't given. Doesn't matter that the moon isn't listed in the COTUS. We want the MOON!!

a reply to: network dude

Some people don't understand State's Rights...until it's something they approve of. Then they're all for the Right of individual states to enact laws. Take gun laws for example : Anti gun folks are all for each state to enforce their own, but abortion seems to be one of those things they're going to scream about.

SCOTUS decided this was something the Federal govt should have no say so, it was up to the people of each state. Leftists don't like it when you actually have a voice.

a reply to: network dude

There is nothing in the Constitution regarding a minimum wage, yet, by law, there is a federal minimum wage (some states set a higher wage than the Federal amount as their Stae's minimum).

So perhaps, what is meant by "running on abortion" is the intent to pass law(s), at the federal level providing and protecting access to abortion on demand?

a reply to: Mantiss2021

this isn't about the right vs. wrong aspect of the ruling, just the promise to "do something about it" aspect. I am curious as to what that "something" is. What can be done to make this a federal issue other than a constitutional amendment?

a reply to: network dude

What is anyone going to do to change that? The only thing I can think of at the federal level, would be a constitutional amendment.

Maybe it's time to pass the ERA. Otherwise, it's good to know that you think that if Democrats had enshrined Roe in law, SCOTUS still would have revoked the federally protected right to reproductive choice.

As it stands, SCOTUS revoked a federally protected right, and extended the opportunity for states to also revoke the reproductive rights their female citizens may have enjoyed, as well.

So what do democrats mean when they claim they are "running on abortion"?

It means they'll oppose a federal abortion ban, a ban on chemical abortions by the FDA, states tracking women's health records from state to state, block law preventing the free interstate travel of pregnant women, support state level ballot initiatives that support a women's right to reproductive choice.

They'll continue to defend the federal protections and lifesaving standards set by EMTALA.

They'll defend IVF and fight against embryo/fetal personhood laws.

They'll defend contraception and Plan B.

It's also concerning because the current candidate for VP, running with an elderly candidate has stated multiple times he wants a federal abortion ban, had called for a federal response to stop women from traveling from a state where it's banned to another state to get one and voted against protecting IVF.

This has since been deleted from his website:

let’s say Roe v Wade is overruled,” Vance said in a recently resurfaced podcast interview. “Ohio bans abortion in 2022, or let’s say 2024. And then, you know, every day George Soros sends a 747 to Columbus to load up disproportionately Black women to get them to go have abortions in California.

Vance continued: “And, and it’s like, if that happens, do you need some federal response to prevent it from happening? Because it’s really creepy.

Guardian

“I certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally,”

link

a reply to: network dude

What is anyone going to do to change that?

Oh come on, you know the answer. The fear is this goes to a national ban. The fear is someone like Vance with a position to "end all abortion" introduces a new piece of legislation.

Overturning it is only half the move.

So when its said "we're running on abortion" what's implied is running to keep a president that would veto and any national ban, should one happen.

Like others, I don't think its possible to hold positions to "end all abortion" and "state's rights" simultaneously, and one will win out.

abcnews.go.com...

a May poll from Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy/South Dakota News Watch/Chiesman Center for Democracy at the University of South Dakota found that 53 percent of voters in deep-red South Dakota supported the proposed amendment to reverse the state's total ban on abortion, while just 35 percent opposed it.

So when a more religious state like South Dakota votes to enshrine abortion rights, lawmakers with a position like JD Vance will get repulsed and try for a national ban to stop state's from making terrible decisions.

We're talking about an individuals autonomy in regards to Federal rights vs States rights...

Haven't we been here before?

This is feeling very 1860's to me.

a reply to: Degradation33

Like, the Life At Conception Act is just sitting in Congress waiting to be passed. Not only would it outlaw abortion, but contraceptives, and IVF.

Bills like this are what the OP is missing with Roe v. Wade being overturned.

a reply to: DAVID64

Some people don't understand State's Rights.

Except in this case, it took away personal rights and gave it instead for the states to decide.

Any state that gave that decision to the people has seen the people say they want to keep the right.

Some states have decided on their own that it’s gone.

For me it’s in this order

Individual rights > state rights > federal rights.

But I think the most effective way for the left and moderate parts of the right to deal with this is at the state level.

As network dude pointed out, the SCOTUS pretty much blocked the Feds from bringing this back unless it was an amendment which is very hard.

a reply to: frogs453

So what.
The OP question was…

What is it that "politicians" will do regarding abortion at the federal level, if it's not a constitutional amendment?

My opinion is the feds can’t do anything.
No way do they get an amendment started either way.
The Dems have had all three branches and both houses locked up and still didn’t do anything.
Same for the republicans.
Both parties can continue to make it a wedge issue if it pleases them, which I’m guessing it does just that.
Kamala is trying to make abortion a top issue this election, along with DEI, but it’s not resonating because their idiotic policies the past 3+ years.
Biden and her ruined the economy, the border and foreign policy.
If they didn’t suck so hard at their job that strategy might have worked.

If you want to kill babies you’re going to have to start pumping all that SOROS money into each individual state and get it done there.
Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.
That baggage is aweful heavy.

Certainly not my area of expertise so please correct me if I am wrong.

A constitutional amendment to codify abortion as a right is extremely difficult.

However rules regarding the composition of the supreme court are just acts of Congress.

Changing the rules that would result in a supreme court more friendly to abortion as an individual right is more plausable.

a reply to: Vermilion

What is it that "politicians" will do regarding abortion at the federal level, if it's not a constitutional amendment?

They will pass a bill that bans it at the federal level. There's nothing in the Dobbs decision that prevents that from occurring.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

oppose a federal abortion ban. But the SCOTUS just ruled that this wasn't a federal issue. How, other than an amendment, could the federal government have ANY say in this matter now? What am I missing?

Abortion has been a go-to topic for both sides. The truth is that abortion activists should be concerned with state elections, not national ones.

Politicians from both sides take advantage of people who don't educate themselves on the facts. Tell the same lie enough times and it will become the truth is like their mantra.

Look at right after Roe v Wade went down. People were saying that the SCOTUS made abortions illegal and they still are saying that to the illiterates. The fact that they simply made it a state issue is hidden by crooked politicians and sadly for America many voters are so illiterate they don't know the difference.

It reminds me of the "they are going to take away Social Security" scam and the "they are going to make America Communist" scam by the other side.

The reality is people need to forget about this partisan crap and learn the facts. Does not matter if your side wins if the people being elected are incompetent or have a dangerous agenda.

Abortion is not a national issue. It really is that simple, but the politicians know how dysfunctional voters are.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Vermilion

What is it that "politicians" will do regarding abortion at the federal level, if it's not a constitutional amendment?

They will pass a bill that bans it at the federal level. There's nothing in the Dobbs decision that prevents that from occurring.

but the SCOTUS ruled that it's not a federal issue, it's not in the COTUS. So, a state could ban it, but a federal government cannot, unless I'm not understanding something. Can you explain how the federal government can do anything about this, without an amendment?

a reply to: network dude

but the SCOTUS ruled that it's not a federal issue

No they didn't. They ruled that abortion is not protected by the US Constitution, therefore it's not a protected constitutional right.

There is nothing in the DOBBS ruling to prevent Congress from enacting a federal abortion ban. There is nothing in the DOBBS ruling to prevent the FDA from banning chemical abortions. There is nothing in the DOBBS ruling to prevent Congress from declaring that "life begins at conception".

a reply to: Vermilion

Yeah, tell that to all the women who are now suing Texas, because the threat of lawsuits/charging doctors is sending women with wanted pregnancies home to nearly bleed out, develop sepsis, and lose their ability to conceive because the doc is waiting to make sure it's "life threatening", even though as happened to one woman it changed in the time it took her to get to the hospital parking lot where she almost bled out.

"Want to kill babies" smdh

a reply to: Degradation33

but the states are in control of this, whereas the federal government has ZERO control based on the ruling. Even if Trump won, and he and Vance stomped their feet and threatened not to ever leave the oval office again, they couldn't do anything about it, unless that thing was to amend the Constitution of the United States of America.

If the federal government could do something about this now, wouldn't Joe and Kamala do "whatever that thing is" to make it permanently allowed?