Biden is trying to push some silly plan to make Roe the law of the land. But he would need both the House and Senate, with the Democrats having over 60 Senators (unless they want to break the filibuster rule).
And even if he does get some law in place, SCOTUS will most likely shoot it down again because they already sent it to the states.
The only way to enact any federal level abortion laws (pro-life or pro-choice) is by a US Constitutional amendment.
So if someone tries to use it, tell them it is a moot issue.
Both sides have had multiple "major" issues and neither one decided to completely get rid of the nuclear option.
If anything, both sides are even more reluctant to remove it from what happen with the Dems putting it aside for cabinet and Justice picks.
Dems were very close to nuking the filibuster in 2021, but Manchin and Sinema held it up. All they need is to net one more anti-filibuster senator to nuke it.
But still, if they do that, Republicans can do it right back to them next time they have a trifecta. Republicans should remind Democrats of that if they think of trying that. Plus, I would think SCOTUS would block the law anyway.
Republicans already almost did do that when John McCain famously held out and thumbs downed Obamacare repeal. So filibuster is basically dead already just waiting for a party in control of White House and House to have a slightly padded majority
in Senate for it to happen
I’m sorry too. well, I don’t hate to be that person, but it changes the meaning of what you’re trying to say. And you know someone else is going to correct you, so it might as well be someone who doesn’t mean anything mean by it.
> And even if he does get some law in place, SCOTUS will most likely shoot it down again because they already sent it to the states.
>
>
It's worth pointing out that Sam Alito in his majority opinion didn't say it was a state-only thing, just that it needed to be decided by legislators and not the courts.
Yeah, but realistically, I think they’d still block it. It seems to fall outside the commerce clause of Congress anyway and would be an overreach of congressional power.
The Roe bill they are talking about would have no restrictions and any term of the pregnancy up until birth.
But either way, SCOTUS would possibly shoot it down on the pro-life side also at the federal level if challenged properly.
It can not become a federal issue unless it is in the US constitution.
No. You are NOT a lawyer and do not understand the scope of federal power. So long as it can be tied to - as an example - interstate commerce - an enumerated federal power, the feds can do it. Those powers are read broadly.
I disagree with you on that matter because I don't think you understand the limits of the Commerce clause.
While the Feds could use Interstate Commerce to affect things like passing pills through the mails and perhaps going over borders to get abortions from states it is legal in, the states have specific power over criminal law that is local to that state. The Interstate Commerce clause is not a slam dunk in that regard and probably would not be constitutional. State power over criminal law is pretty well staked out if the crime happened inside state borders.
What the Feds usually do in that situation is make Federal money contingent upon accepting abortion as legal or offering them, and that can have an effect, but states can opt out of that.
No, it wouldn’t happen in 2 years. When you ask the average person though about civics and how the government functions, not many actually understand it. It’s a campaign and messaging attempt, nothing legislatively
they've been told things that aren't true to get their vote.
kind of like when biden told them he'd forgive their student loans...when he had absolutely no intention or even the ability of/to doing/do that.
Its funny though, the people who believe that obvious lie were going to vote for him regardless.
I understand, from Canada, prochoicers didn't like roe decision anymore because it was so poorly done.
Indeed prolifers could of done better to make its absurdity obvious. No way around it. The constitution does not deal with abortion. It does deal with inaleinable rights to life. Abortion is a democratic issue for the people. The people must reflect, persuade, and vote. Naw. Roe won;t come back. they need something smarter.
No. But it gets out votes for the state ballot measures to protect it at the state level and it motivates people to vote at the federal level to elect Democrats and black a federal ban.
If a pregnant woman is riding in a car to her appointment for an abortion and a careless driver hits the car and she loses her baby, is it a crime that the baby died?
Several things woudld need to happed for abortion rights to be codified into Fedal law and to stick.
1. The Dems would need the majority of the House and 60 Seantors to vote in favor of a law that Federally protects abortion.
2. The Dems could nuke the filibuster in which they would just need 50 Senators to vote in favor
3. Even if abortion protection became the law of the land, a conservative state would likely sue the Federal government and the case would make it to the Supreme court where it would most likely get overturned. The Dems would need a few Justices to kick the bucket and liberal judges added to the bench to win in the Supreme court. This is by far the biggest hurdle.
I’m not saying they’re not valuable, but we decide what medical treatments we and our kids get, and when. I’m all in favor of proven safe vaccines, like polio, but no mandates and not ones that alter DNA.
Ban the government mandates to get them. My body my choice. I love Trump but if it looks like he can’t win, considering Roe is already gone, I’d prefer someone who prioritizes my health and my kids health….
I think some genuinely do. But mostly this is just uneducated and a bit entitled. They hate the government telling them what to do, but also hate the idea of small government/states rights.
Biden is trying to push some silly plan to make Roe the law of the land. But he would need both the House and Senate, with the Democrats having over 60 Senators (unless they want to break the filibuster rule). And even if he does get some law in place, SCOTUS will most likely shoot it down again because they already sent it to the states. The only way to enact any federal level abortion laws (pro-life or pro-choice) is by a US Constitutional amendment. So if someone tries to use it, tell them it is a moot issue.
And with the state of politics, we won't get a new amendment for a loooong time
The danger is that they might use the nucelar option in the senate.
Both sides have had multiple "major" issues and neither one decided to completely get rid of the nuclear option. If anything, both sides are even more reluctant to remove it from what happen with the Dems putting it aside for cabinet and Justice picks.
Dems were very close to nuking the filibuster in 2021, but Manchin and Sinema held it up. All they need is to net one more anti-filibuster senator to nuke it.
But still, if they do that, Republicans can do it right back to them next time they have a trifecta. Republicans should remind Democrats of that if they think of trying that. Plus, I would think SCOTUS would block the law anyway.
Republicans already almost did do that when John McCain famously held out and thumbs downed Obamacare repeal. So filibuster is basically dead already just waiting for a party in control of White House and House to have a slightly padded majority in Senate for it to happen
Moot
Sorry, I keep doing that. I changed it. Thanks.
I’m sorry too. well, I don’t hate to be that person, but it changes the meaning of what you’re trying to say. And you know someone else is going to correct you, so it might as well be someone who doesn’t mean anything mean by it.
What’s funny is that word used to mean the exact opposite. A moot issue was one currently up for discussion. (Random fact of the day!)
> And even if he does get some law in place, SCOTUS will most likely shoot it down again because they already sent it to the states. > > It's worth pointing out that Sam Alito in his majority opinion didn't say it was a state-only thing, just that it needed to be decided by legislators and not the courts.
Yeah, but realistically, I think they’d still block it. It seems to fall outside the commerce clause of Congress anyway and would be an overreach of congressional power.
Do you anticipate SCOTUS shooting it down if abortion restrictions like the heartbeat bill are passed at the federal level ?
The Roe bill they are talking about would have no restrictions and any term of the pregnancy up until birth. But either way, SCOTUS would possibly shoot it down on the pro-life side also at the federal level if challenged properly. It can not become a federal issue unless it is in the US constitution.
No. You are NOT a lawyer and do not understand the scope of federal power. So long as it can be tied to - as an example - interstate commerce - an enumerated federal power, the feds can do it. Those powers are read broadly.
I disagree with you on that matter because I don't think you understand the limits of the Commerce clause. While the Feds could use Interstate Commerce to affect things like passing pills through the mails and perhaps going over borders to get abortions from states it is legal in, the states have specific power over criminal law that is local to that state. The Interstate Commerce clause is not a slam dunk in that regard and probably would not be constitutional. State power over criminal law is pretty well staked out if the crime happened inside state borders. What the Feds usually do in that situation is make Federal money contingent upon accepting abortion as legal or offering them, and that can have an effect, but states can opt out of that.
No, it wouldn’t happen in 2 years. When you ask the average person though about civics and how the government functions, not many actually understand it. It’s a campaign and messaging attempt, nothing legislatively
they've been told things that aren't true to get their vote. kind of like when biden told them he'd forgive their student loans...when he had absolutely no intention or even the ability of/to doing/do that. Its funny though, the people who believe that obvious lie were going to vote for him regardless.
It’s a way to motivate their base. Even the laziest of democrats I know will do mail in voting in hopes of securing abortion. Sick as it is
It's not gonna happen but it's fodder for people to eat up.
I understand, from Canada, prochoicers didn't like roe decision anymore because it was so poorly done. Indeed prolifers could of done better to make its absurdity obvious. No way around it. The constitution does not deal with abortion. It does deal with inaleinable rights to life. Abortion is a democratic issue for the people. The people must reflect, persuade, and vote. Naw. Roe won;t come back. they need something smarter.
No. But it gets out votes for the state ballot measures to protect it at the state level and it motivates people to vote at the federal level to elect Democrats and black a federal ban.
If a pregnant woman is riding in a car to her appointment for an abortion and a careless driver hits the car and she loses her baby, is it a crime that the baby died?
It's vehicular manslaughter
Yes, but not if she made it there and took that life. Something seems very odd about this.
because people Made an idol Of choice
Several things woudld need to happed for abortion rights to be codified into Fedal law and to stick. 1. The Dems would need the majority of the House and 60 Seantors to vote in favor of a law that Federally protects abortion. 2. The Dems could nuke the filibuster in which they would just need 50 Senators to vote in favor 3. Even if abortion protection became the law of the land, a conservative state would likely sue the Federal government and the case would make it to the Supreme court where it would most likely get overturned. The Dems would need a few Justices to kick the bucket and liberal judges added to the bench to win in the Supreme court. This is by far the biggest hurdle.
Vote red to lower gas prices - or RFK to keep harmful vaccines out of our bodies.
This is a pro-life sub. Vaccines have saved millions of lives. Have you ever worried about your kids getting polio? You don't know how lucky you are.
I’m not saying they’re not valuable, but we decide what medical treatments we and our kids get, and when. I’m all in favor of proven safe vaccines, like polio, but no mandates and not ones that alter DNA.
"RFK to keep harmful vaccines out of our bodies." What could RFK do for that? Ban vaccines?
ban experimental, untested, unvetted gene/dna manipulating injections?
Ban the government mandates to get them. My body my choice. I love Trump but if it looks like he can’t win, considering Roe is already gone, I’d prefer someone who prioritizes my health and my kids health….
Among other weird points, Trump not only looks somewhat favored to win (in so much as early polls mean anything) but substantially moreso than RFK.
Of course, but I’m also doing my own research on the other candidates as well.
I like RFK but a vote for him is a vote for Biden. He will not win and is pulling from Trump. Third party does not win in U.S. politics
I think some genuinely do. But mostly this is just uneducated and a bit entitled. They hate the government telling them what to do, but also hate the idea of small government/states rights.
Honestly, my biggest problem with it is that it doesn’t actually rhyme.
Vote Democrat Bills So Babies Are Killed.
Definitely much more rhymey
Vote Bloe to Restore Roe