Elections The abortion issue in 2024

[Captain Davis]

So, the Fedeeal Government enacted a protective Act due to an interpretation of the 14th Amendment in that context. Got it.

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, SCOTUS makes decisions all the time based on interpretation. Which is bullshit. Justices should have no political bias, but of course they do, which is why having a Supreme Court was a bad decision.

Even the 13th and 14th Amendments are illegitimate. They weren’t passed in a constitutional manner. But, of course, no one is going to fight it.

I’m sure there is a way to make abortion constitutional, like before using the 4th Amendment, but that was a stretch. Of course it can happen, but it shouldn’t. Abortion should be a state decision. Just like gun laws and anything else not mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Helden]

The more republicans push their anti abortion crap, the smaller their chances get when it comes to elections, so please keep going

 

[Sinister]

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, SCOTUS makes decisions all the time based on interpretation. Which is bullshit. Justices should have no political bias, but of course they do, which is why having a Supreme Court was a bad decision.

Even the 13th and 14th Amendments are illegitimate. They weren’t passed in a constitutional manner. But, of course, no one is going to fight it.

I’m sure there is a way to make abortion constitutional, like before using the 4th Amendment, but that was a stretch. Of course it can happen, but it shouldn’t. Abortion should be a state decision. Just like gun laws and anything else not mentioned in the Constitution.

I dont agree abortion should be a State decision because of how inflammatory an issue it is, similar to segregation. It's a class issue disguised as a moral issue, and all the History of it has distinct roots in practices designed to disempower women. If we have a Federal Government, Federal protections should absolutely be a thing. The only time I've ever seen State's rights arguments in US History almost always surround the notion that a rogue State wants to do something tyrannical.

Like force you to be a parent when you dont want to. Force a raped woman to bear a rapist's child. Force 12 year-olds to become parents while they have almost no other political rights. Etc.

 

[BFoe]

So lobbying of any type should be banned and people shouldn’t vote based on their beliefs. Got it. Muslims can and do exactly what you say and you can count all my posts about them being allowed to vote that way using all the days on Simpson lives from today forward.

You totally mis-stated what I said, so I am thinking you don’t get it lol. I didn’t say citizens couldn’t vote their conscience; if they want to vote for a Catholic candidate because they themselves are Catholic, great. But they can’t do so in a way that violates people’s rights.
Congress (or a state) passing a law forbidding me to wear a condom because birth control is against their religion? Nope. We have just as much right to be free from their religion as they have to practice it. What you are advocating for is the U.S. version of Sharia Law, where one group’s religion becomes the law of the land that everyone else is forced to live under. It’s profoundly un-American, anti-freedom, and anti-Constitution.

It isn’t a matter of conservatives/leftists or Republicans/Democrats, it is a matter of constitutional integrity.

Abortion is a state responsibility if it is not delegated to the federal government by the states.

And I am saying that from a constitutional perspective, this is incorrect.
The 9th Amendment does not say that. The 10th Amendment also does not say that, despite what some conservative justices might have you believe. For example:

Marriage is not delegated to the federal government, but it’s not a power of the state either. It’s a right of the people. Sure, the state can pass certain regulations re: marriage licenses, but they can’t just prohibit you from marrying someone you love (absent some compelling state interest like if you were trying to marry your first cousin, or a minor, or some shit like that).

There is a definite push though to have the Constitution interpreted that way, and we must fight back against it and not let it happen.
The government has no compelling interest in the early stages of pregnancy, and no right to force a woman to carry a no viable fetus, her rapist’s baby, or any fetus for that matter.

 

[cincymma79]

How so?

How is abortion taking us forward as a society?

You totally mis-stated what I said, so I am thinking you don’t get it lol. I didn’t say citizens couldn’t vote their conscience; if they want to vote for a Catholic candidate because they themselves are Catholic, great. But they can’t do so in a way that violates people’s rights.
Congress (or a state) passing a law forbidding me to wear a condom because birth control is against their religion? Nope. We have just as much right to be free from their religion as they have to practice it. What you are advocating for is the U.S. version of Sharia Law, where one group’s religion becomes the law of the land that everyone else is forced to live under. It’s profoundly un-American, anti-freedom, and anti-Constitution.



And I am saying that from a constitutional perspective, this is incorrect.
The 9th Amendment does not say that. The 10th Amendment also does not say that, despite what some conservative justices might have you believe. For example:

Marriage is not delegated to the federal government, but it’s not a power of the state either. It’s a right of the people. Sure, the state can pass certain regulations re: marriage licenses, but they can’t just prohibit you from marrying someone you love (absent some compelling state interest like if you were trying to marry your first cousin, or a minor, or some shit like that).

There is a definite push though to have the Constitution interpreted that way, and we must fight back against it and not let it happen.
The government has no compelling interest in the early stages of pregnancy, and no right to force a woman to carry a no viable fetus, her rapist’s baby, or any fetus for that matter.

they are allowed to vote for their laws but they’re 20% or less of society. Muslims are 1%

 

[Helden]

How is abortion taking us forward as a society?

they are allowed to vote for their laws but they’re 20% or less of society. Muslims are 1%

Giving women control over their bodies tends to have net positive effects on every society, socially and economically.
Not forcing women not fit for motherhood to carry a pregnancy to full and then do a poor job raising the child is also a net benefit to society.

There are no economically and socially successful nations in the world that outlaw abortions and the only argument against abortions is a religious one.

 

[cincymma79]

Giving women control over their bodies tends to have net positive effects on every society, socially and economically.
Not forcing women not fit for motherhood to carry a pregnancy to full and then do a poor job raising the child is also a net benefit to society.

There are no economically and socially successful nations in the world that outlaw abortions and the only argument against abortions is a religious one.

There are two other a words women can use adoption and anal

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Banning abortion is just bad politics. Women have the vote now and they want the right to cut apart living babies in their wombs and rip them out in chunks and chuck them in a garbage bin.

At some point you have to accept that this is what they want and they'll accept a lot of shit they don't want in exchange for this one right.

It's sad but it's just the reality of the modern world.

 

[Islam Imamate]

So they believe that the person doing it is going to get the worst possible punishment and you believe they should just ignore it despite their religion demanding they help them? That’s silly.

They have the freedom to voice their opinions but the thing is the radical pro-lifers are costing the GOP elections because of their extreme views. In response to that the GOP is trying to create the appearance that its moderating its message while also pretending that the Dems are similarly radical despite the fact that the Democrats simply supported the Roe status quo which was a compromise itself and despite the fact that in all likelihood these supposedly "moderate" Republicans have zero intention of standing up to the radicals in their party when in power.

You totally mis-stated what I said, so I am thinking you don’t get it lol. I didn’t say citizens couldn’t vote their conscience; if they want to vote for a Catholic candidate because they themselves are Catholic, great. But they can’t do so in a way that violates people’s rights.
Congress (or a state) passing a law forbidding me to wear a condom because birth control is against their religion? Nope. We have just as much right to be free from their religion as they have to practice it. What you are advocating for is the U.S. version of Sharia Law, where one group’s religion becomes the law of the land that everyone else is forced to live under. It’s profoundly un-American, anti-freedom, and anti-Constitution.

The constitution does not allow the recognizing of a state religion but that doesn't mean people can't vote their conscious based on their religion to pass laws. Of course if those laws violate someone's rights then they get overturned but that would happen irrespective of the motivation behind the law being religious or not.

Marriage is not delegated to the federal government, but it’s not a power of the state either. It’s a right of the people. Sure, the state can pass certain regulations re: marriage licenses, but they can’t just prohibit you from marrying someone you love (absent some compelling state interest like if you were trying to marry your first cousin, or a minor, or some shit like that).

There is a definite push though to have the Constitution interpreted that way, and we must fight back against it and not let it happen.
The government has no compelling interest in the early stages of pregnancy, and no right to force a woman to carry a no viable fetus, her rapist’s baby, or any fetus for that matter.

What is the compelling state interest in banning 1st cousin marriage?

 

[Captain Davis]

I dont agree abortion should be a State decision because of how inflammatory an issue it is, similar to segregation. It's a class issue disguised as a moral issue, and all the History of it has distinct roots in practices designed to disempower women. If we have a Federal Government, Federal protections should absolutely be a thing. The only time I've ever seen State's rights arguments in US History almost always surround the notion that a rogue State wants to do something tyrannical.

Like force you to be a parent when you dont want to. Force a raped woman to bear a rapist's child. Force 12 year-olds to become parents while they have almost no other political rights. Etc.

Let the people of each state vote on it. It can’t be anymore fair.

 

[Captain Davis]

You totally mis-stated what I said, so I am thinking you don’t get it lol. I didn’t say citizens couldn’t vote their conscience; if they want to vote for a Catholic candidate because they themselves are Catholic, great. But they can’t do so in a way that violates people’s rights.
Congress (or a state) passing a law forbidding me to wear a condom because birth control is against their religion? Nope. We have just as much right to be free from their religion as they have to practice it. What you are advocating for is the U.S. version of Sharia Law, where one group’s religion becomes the law of the land that everyone else is forced to live under. It’s profoundly un-American, anti-freedom, and anti-Constitution.



And I am saying that from a constitutional perspective, this is incorrect.
The 9th Amendment does not say that. The 10th Amendment also does not say that, despite what some conservative justices might have you believe. For example:

Marriage is not delegated to the federal government, but it’s not a power of the state either. It’s a right of the people. Sure, the state can pass certain regulations re: marriage licenses, but they can’t just prohibit you from marrying someone you love (absent some compelling state interest like if you were trying to marry your first cousin, or a minor, or some shit like that).

There is a definite push though to have the Constitution interpreted that way, and we must fight back against it and not let it happen.
The government has no compelling interest in the early stages of pregnancy, and no right to force a woman to carry a no viable fetus, her rapist’s baby, or any fetus for that matter.

I’m not pushing for or against abortion. All I’m saying is that it should be a state issue. Let the people of each state vote on it.

 

[avenue94]

I’m not pushing for or against abortion. All I’m saying is that it should be a state issue. Let the people of each state vote on it.

And yet the GOP is frequently doing its best to prevent people from voting on abortion by making it harder to propose ballot measures.

 

[Sinister]

Let the people of each state vote on it. It can’t be anymore fair.

That's an ideological argument. Next bill is whether or not women have the right to vote (they didnt until the modern era), if a State has more men than women, suddenly women can no longer vote. Or perhaps...whether or not black people actually ARE 3/5 of a person. Fairness is relative to the makeup of the State, subject to gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, etc.

 

[BFoe]

I’m not pushing for or against abortion. All I’m saying is that it should be a state issue. Let the people of each state vote on it.

It’s not a state issue to decide, it’s an individual right. You’re acting like your position is moderate, it is not.

In your constitutional worldview, a state government could force a woman to carry a nonviable pregnancy, one that could be a risk to her health or safety, one that resulted from rape—the government could force her to do all manner of things with her family planning, or healthcare.

The 10th Amendment doesn’t just mention powers reserved to the states, it mentions that some powers are reserved to the people. This is clearly one of them, one the government has minimal business in, if it has any at all.

they are allowed to vote for their laws but they’re 20% or less of society. Muslims are 1%

I don’t see what this has to do with anything and you didn’t address my point.

 

[cincymma79]

It’s not a state issue to decide, it’s an individual right. You’re acting like your position is moderate, it is not.

In your constitutional worldview, a state government could force a woman to carry a nonviable pregnancy, one that could be a risk to her health or safety, one that resulted from rape—the government could force her to do all manner of things with her family planning, or healthcare.

The 10th Amendment doesn’t just mention powers reserved to the states, it mentions that some powers are reserved to the people. This is clearly one of them, one the government has minimal business in, if it has any at all.


I don’t see what this has to do with anything and you didn’t address my point.

They can lobby how they want and vote how they want. If they get enough people in their state to vote one way or another so be it.

Democrats could’ve made roe and actual law many many times. They’re not going to because they’re using it to stay relevant just like republicans

 

[AZ103]

I felt compelled to correct some science about a subject that I can speak on from a point of experience.
About the whole abortion argument, I’d say it’s pretty obvious that Roe V Wade was a good standard. You can cry about morals/the Bible like all conservatives do and then not actually give a flying fuck about kids that are around.

You want to force women to give birth and then not give the kids any assistance. Conservatives consistently vote against anything that actually helps kids grow into contributing members of society.

I'm a foster parent and I'm not religious. You know nothing about me. It's crazy the kill babies crowd thinks they're the ones who care about kids.

And notice you said nothing brave about your beleifs. Roe v wade was such a good standard it got overturned. Stick to animals bud.

 

[Zookeeper Gabe]

I'm a foster parent and I'm not religious. You know nothing about me. It's crazy the kill babies crowd thinks they're the ones who care about kids.

And notice you said nothing brave about your beleifs. Roe v wade was such a good standard it got overturned. Stick to animals bud.

If conservatives cared for kids red states would have lower maternal mortality rates. Congrats on being a foster parent, but have a few questions that I’m sure you can answer since you are so brave.

If conservatives really cared for kids, why do so many red states have such high maternal mortality rates? They want to force women to stay pregnant in states where they are literally more likely to die from pregnancy related deaths. If they really cared for kids, why do conservatives constantly look at cutting education and healthcare?

 

[Lead]

This was the main issue in 2022 that stopped the red wave, and credit to someone like Matt Gaetz, he said prior to the elections, that the abortion issue, coupled with democrat aligned influencers, especially on the abortion issue would help quell the tide and reduce the red wave to a ripple.

There’s some revisionist history here. Many key seats were lost by the GOP because the primary winners ran hard on election fraud and the general public soundly dismissed that garbage. Vance may be the only one who really got by and that’s mainly due to Ohio being red so the primary was where it would be won at. That’s really where the problem will be too. Where a decent senator like Portman is replaced with someone like Vance over and over. Republicans will need to learn how to craft a more pragmatic message on abortion instead of what they’ve done for decades of saying things they’d do if they only could control it. There’s certainly pushback now to those policies but I believe we are already seeing some pivots.

The worst move the GOP could do would be nationalizing the topic because that means attacking the filibuster, which I don’t think is in their or the national favor. McConnell at least understood that but I don’t know if his successor will.

 

[Chappi]

If not one or all of his criminal cases, Roe v Wade will cost Trump the election.
I'm willing to bet that even 99% of rightwing woman will vote blue because of this.
They wont tell their idiot families or partners about it, but they will vote blue.

 

[ferrisjso]

The act must have constitutional backing.

Both Roe and the repeal of Dobbs were done because thats what the majority of Justices on those courts wanted to do.

The 14th amendment does not have a clear interpretation hence why its responsible for a larger amount of constitutional litigation than any other part of the document(maybe the commerce clause back in the day?). It means whatever YOU want it to mean. Originalist common law is a myth so people can claim their interpretations are objective fact. But they are full of shit and they know it but they will never say it because that breaks the illusion of impartial law they value so highly.

The whole reason SCOTUS has power is because John Marshall pulled that power out of his ass and no one stopped him. Pretending it is anything more than that is pseudo religious.