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

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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".

then conversely, there is nothing that denies Dem's the ability to enshrine is as a law that anyone can get one at any time. Or does it only work one way?

respectfullu

originally posted by: frogs453
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

why would they sue a state and not the federal government?

originally posted by: MetalThunder
removed

that's off topic and not helpful to the discussion. Please delete.

thank you!

a reply to: network dude

Dobbs ruled that abortion was not a Constitutional right and that Roe made a mistake by tying it to right to privacy. That's it.

The ruling specifically says that it is up to people's elected representatives to legislate. It says nothing about whether those representatives have to be at the state or federal level.

Abortion should be up to the states. If the majority of the people in that state do not want it legal, they pass legislation by voting on ballots. This is the United States, if you do not like what your state offers, you can move to a state that fits your beliefs. I am not anti or pro abortion, but do think there should be limits on how far along a person can get an abortion. Get it before that point. If the abortion is needed to save the mothers life, then I do agree it is needed. But most states do have that reason covered by different laws. If it is from Rape or incest, that should be allowed, but I know people will lie and say someone raped them and skirt the laws when it is not true.

Let it stay that each state has the right to set their policy on this, the Feds do not need to be involved. I did agree with Roe Vs Wade originally, but have seen that it was abused and time frames changed over the years.

Politicians are full of BS... only politicians in the state legislature of that state should be involved with this, it is irrevelant for any federal politician to be using this in campaigns now since the law was found not to be correct.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

Dobbs ruled that abortion was not a Constitutional right and that Roe made a mistake by tying it to right to privacy. That's it.

The ruling specifically says that it is up to people's elected representatives to legislate. It says nothing about whether those representatives have to be at the state or federal level.

So democrats could do something on the federal level to end this debate?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There is nothing in the DOBBS ruling to prevent Congress from enacting a federal abortion ban.

Nothing other than congress itself?
I know you don’t think they could actually do that. You’re smarter than that, I think.

Maybe the word “realistically” should have been in the question.
I’m trying to remember who the boogeyman was beyond 2 weeks ago before JD was the VP candidate.
If you crazy libs stopped inventing boogeymen you’d be much happier Karens.

Let me try asking this another way, 'currently, abortion has exactly ZERO to do with the federal government', is that a factual statement?

a reply to: network dude

Yes. And that's exactly what they're planning on doing if they have the numbers after the election.

a reply to: Vermilion

Once again, the Life at Conception Act is sitting in Congress waiting to be passed if the Republicans ever get the numbers.

a reply to: network dude

That's kind of a misnomer. It's not explicitly the Roe V. Wade ruling to kick it to the states that's drawing worry. IT IS THIS:

www.whitehouse.gov... ons-in-latest-budget/

This week, the Republican Study Committee...

Supports eliminating reproductive freedom for all women in every state and puts IVF treatment squarely on the chopping block through House Republicans’ support for the Life at Conception Act.

www.congress.gov...

This was introduced before the decision to kick it to states, but 3 years later it's sorta left on the backburner. Still widely supported in 2024.

This has less to do with the SCOTUS decision's standing. That really has passed. Now this is about the federal protection removed that prevented HR431 from being legal. Now, nothing stops anyone from trying this.

91 original signators, 75 additional. 166 members of Congress in total. Up to 166 elected representatives support overriding their own states decision to enact their own laws on abortion.

It's what can't be prevented without the Federal protection. States are all we have. And that could go away in the signing of HR431 into law.

THE GREATEST FEAR = If it was REALLY about states rights then this wouldn't still be a point of emphasis in Republican budgeting that is widely supported, and left in limbo status.

Win the Whitehouse, go 4 years without trying to pass HR431 and I'll apologize for thinking the "States Rights" declarations were bait and switch bullsh*t.

If you don't want me to think it was all REALLY about having the ability to try for a national ban STOP SUPPORTING A NATIONAL BAN!

originally posted by: network dude
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.
.......

False.

The exact words of the ruling are: "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives." Elected representatives can be either Federal or State.

Currently, there is no Federal law on the issue, one way or the other. So each State is free to make their own law either protecting it or prohibiting it. If a Federal law were to be passed either protecting it or prohibiting it, then the States would have to abide by that law also, because Federal law takes precedence over State law.

a reply to: network dude

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

That women want control over their own bodies without state or federal control...

originally posted by: lilzazz
a reply to: network dude

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

That women want control over their own bodies without state or federal control...

Super, I want free beer. But I am asking about the ability for federal statutes to be implemented with regard to abortion.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

Yes. And that's exactly what they're planning on doing if they have the numbers after the election.

OK, so when the R's have control, they could try to force this, but if a D gets control, then they could overturn it, and it's the same political football it is today?

ATTENTION...please read before posting further....

BE AWARE THAT IF YOUR POST IS NOT ON TOPIC AND/OR IS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS YOU MAY BE ABOUT TO HAVE POSTS REMOVED. OR YOU MAY BE TEMPORARILY POST BANNED!
AND, PLEASE REMEMBER THERE IS NO MORE MUD PIT....MUD NOT ALLOWED. Just because the MUD PIT is gone, doesn't mean ATS allows muddy politics.

Everyone and I mean everyone is allowed to post here on topic and to do so without being called names or becoming the target of others' posts. Debate the topic and leave each other out of it. OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS are encouraged.
Those who refuse to get that concept may be POST BANNED!!!

These rules apply to all threads and if you want to engage in personal attacks there are other sites on the Internet where you can do that. Our goal is for ATS to be above that. For members here to post like mature adults.
YOU are responsible for your own posts

And, as always...
Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: frogs453

Women are not dying in large numbers to rejected abortions. Just not happening.

Since 1998 there have been almost 20 million abortions. Less than 200 women have died. So no one is bleeding out. No one is going home to die.

Now, find a state who allows it. That is what makes America great. You can live anywhere.

Link

Abortion is not a Federal Issue. It is as illegal as ObamaCare. No funding should go to it.No Federal Law should restrict it, and, based on this decision, never will.

Abortion is not a political topic.

a reply to: lilzazz

How about make it mandatory for the woman to let the man know she is having an abortion. It is part his right? It should be a mutual decision.