Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned

So?

 

Perhaps we liberals should want to see this law upheld, as I believe it will signal the real end of the Republican Party.

Abortion is a RIGHT will become the greatest campaign slogan we Democrats have ever had and will sweep us to solid victories in the Senate and the House in both 2022 and 2024. The only things the Republicans will have to counter it is to make further appeals to all of us to support more laws based on religious fanaticism and advocate more tax breaks for the very wealthy.

By 2028 the only Republicans left will be the remnants of Q-Anon

 

Do not take this the wrong way, but I must point out to you, that you are considering this from a very narrow perspective. Perhaps you are not aware that the majority of Americans don't have the funds on hand, for an unexpected $400 expense (when the study was done; Covid Relief funds have probably improved that situation, a bit). But that is just MOST Americans. That encompasses several distinct classes of people. And there are millions of poor people, who own no car, and for whom your suggestion to hop on a plane, and travel to another state or country, would sound like a cruel joke. There are people for whom it presents a hardship, if they miss a single day of work (and may well work 6 days a week). As easy as it might be for someone like yourself to believe this circumstance is not only all their own doing, but that if it means being unable to get a desired, safe, abortion, that it serves them right-- you have not walked a mile in their shoes (on the way to the nearest state's abortion clinic). You may believe that, if you were looking over their shoulders, you could tell them just what to do to turn their circumstances around-- but your confident assumptions, will never be put to the test. More to the point, simply failing to maximize one's full economic potential, does not confer with it, the loss of basic rights. While you may be ignorant of their existence, that does not render those who have already suffered, due to states' campaigns against abortion clinics, any less flesh and blood human beings; and more of them will eventually find themselves facing dire straits, if the SCOTUS reinterprets the 14th Amendment, to not guarantee every woman the right, and the opportunity, to choose to abort a fetus, in the early part of her pregnancy.

There is no logical way the Court could justify that this IS a right, while leaving the parameters of that right, fully in the control of the individual states. Unfortunately, this does not guarantee that they will not try to do, just that. Though I believe they would retain Roe's minimum mandate of allowing 1st trimester abortions, that will not mean, in practice, that facilities performing these will be accessible to most, in many states.



P.S.-- If you are not currently a multi-millionaire, there are certainly those who will say that this is your own fault, and that if you lived as they thought that you should, those millions would be as good as in the bank.

 

IMO It should be overturned because it is neither liberty nor privacy issue.

 

I would support measures to provide free contraceptives to those who need them. This would reduce not only abortions, but also unplanned babies who end up in the streets committing all kinds of crimes, and collecting welfare checks. It would save money.

 

Is that a fact? Chris Christie and Mitt Romney will wear horns and bearskins to the Republican convention?

I am old enough to remember that the Republican party was "dead" after Nixon resigned. Then we got Ronald Reagan (twice), Bush I, Bush II (twice), and Trump. And of course, Herbert Hoover was president from 29 to 33 and the Republican party was doomed then as well. Then along came Republicans Dwight Eisenhower (elected and re-elected) and Richard Nixon (elected and re-elected). How soon we forget.

And LOL at "Abortion is a Right!" as a campaign slogan, never mind that it's not even in the constitution. Let's bet $100 that "Abortion is a Right!" will not be the slogan of the Democratic Party, though there will of course be some pro-abortion nuts at the convention embarrassing the party leadership when those placards are broadcast on national TV.

 

I took a pledge as part of Gambler's Anonymous, otherwise I might take that bet. That slogan will be in the speeches not just on some placards if Roe is overturned and it WILL be in the end of the Republican Party if that happens. People are just about fed up with a minority that wants to impose an authoritarian moralistic dictatorship on the greater bulk of us through legislative trickery and outright lies when that doesn't work. Most conservatives seem to somehow think that all women are just pining for some "real men" to come along and impregnate them while taking their shoes away. I think that instead your flabbergasted surprise as to what will actually happen if Roe is overturned will presage the end of the GOP as a political entity in this country

You'e absolutely right that "Abortion is a Rght" is not in the Constitution. It WILL be if Roe is overturned. What will NOT be around any more will be the Republican pols who seem to think that women don't vote any more nor compose an absolute majority in our electorate when they do..

 

So? It means you don't even believe your own argument!

 

error

 

No, it just means that most of your more hidebound religious fanatic conservatives really do think that women are a lesser sort of being than a man. They think that most women in their "heart of hearts" are secretly pining for some "real men" to impregnate them and take their shoes away. They forget that women can still VOTE, though that is probably their next planned reform in restoring conservotopia

 

Yep I was right. It's obvious by your trying to distract to some sort of weird impregnation fantasy of yours.

Lots of stuff going on in that head of yours. Not logical things maybe but something...

 

Then what is it? And how does that mean Roe should be overturned?

 

You're the one distracting here. The ONLY reason to outlaw abortion is to enslave women to their own biology. A pregnant woman cannot compete with a man. If she's pregnant often enough she can't even leave the house

 

Its a medical procedure, and there is not Constitutional right to every imaginable procedure (like euthanasia). Why do you oppose having the States decide the issue?

 

I guess we'll find out ....

Do you know what's involved in amending the constitution? Politically and legally?

Also, what would a constitutional amendment say? If it doesn't say "The right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy at any time prior to birth," then it will require some line drawing. Where would the line be drawn? And what chance is there that there will be sufficient agreement among the states,even the pro choice states, to enact the amendment?

 

But free contraceptives is not on the table, and we are not politicians with any power to negotiate a deal. We are only giving our opinions on the facts, as we find them to be. Therefore, your answer of what speculated program you would support, does not explain your attitude toward those who currently find themselves in this position, which my reply had addressed.

Were you aware that your prescriptions were unrealistic, for many? Does this make no difference to your opinion? And if it does not, since your, it's not a big deal because they can all just take a trip to someplace where they can get an abortion, rationale is faulty, what is the thinking which justifies your unchanged view (if you don't mind my asking)?

Let me leave you with some facts, which I found to be disconcertingly dire, of which you may not be fully aware:

You realize that at six weeks (or before), which now 11 states have set as the threshold, is before most women even realize they are pregnant? How does this not, then, deprive them of any choice in the manner (other than by choosing to never have femoral intercourse)? And the dearth of abortion clinics in all those states is not the result of simple economics, Capitalism, at work. It is because of regulatory persecution of clinics, in those states. Still not a matter for federal law, in your mind?

 

Can you define regulatory persecution ?

 

The first thing we'd have to do is get rid of most of the Republicans, not easy, unless the Republicans have decided to turn women against them en masse

And wky can't the amendment say just that?

You seem to forget that the Equal Rights Amendment, which recognized abortion as a fundamental right, came within a hair of passing just a few years ago, and Abortion was not under even half the threat then as it is now.

 

What triggered this round anyhow? Could it have been the recent 'advances' made by abortion advocates like partial birth abortion? Abortion after full delivery?

Pass your amendment if you can, be sure and include "Shall not be infringed" so that the right is crystal clear and can never be questioned. If abortion is as accepted as you say you can surely get it ratified and then you will have indisputable Constitutional law, sort of.

 

OK that's a bizarre reason, and I don't think I've seen that argument...anywhere. Admittedly I don't dip in the abortion section very much so someone may have made that argument, but I've not heard it.

 

Both of those practices are almost always last ditch attempts to save a mother's life. Unless you don't want to allow abortions even to do that they will mostly be unaffected. (Do you think women often go through the entire nine months of a pregnancy and then decide to abort the baby while they are having it for....I don't know,...the luls?)

 

What?

This is the equal rights amendment: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

Nothing about abortion.

 

It's not at all bizarre. A woman's "tendency" to get pregnant has been an almost proverbial "justification" for discriminating against her in hiring practices until that was made illegal.

 

This is your statement: "The ONLY reason to outlaw abortion is to enslave women to their own biology."

Where are you getting this bizarre argument from? Who is making it?