3 ms·

I think the possible federal ban on abortion is something that is not taken into account enough right now. The odds that Republicans will have the relevant majo

I think the possible federal ban on abortion is something that is not taken into account enough right now. The odds that Republicans will have the relevant majorities in 2024 are pretty high. The inflation and the consequences from the Ukraine war are not Biden's fault, but voters usually punish the current administration for everything that goes wrong.

tekknik 4y ago
- fabian2k 4y ago
  Just like they had no interest in overturning Roe v. Wade? Strategically it's of course a bad idea to do this, but Republicans might not have much of a choice. They have cultivated abortion as a key issue, it is more useful to them as a bogeyman, but if they have the power I don't see how they would not ban it federally as well.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    Who said they had no interest in overturning Row v. Wade? It was very clear they wanted it overturned from the beginning.
- jmyeet 4y ago
  I can't tell if you actually think this or you're just lying but they're already doing this [1]: > Former Vice President Mike Pence said Friday that social conservatives in the post-Roe era “must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the land.” and > Republicans have introduced bills to recognize a right to life from the moment of fertilization, legislation that would prohibit abortion nationwide. [1]: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-06-24/supreme-court-abortion-decision-political-fallout https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-06-24/supreme-co...
  - tekknik 4y ago
    1. Pence does no speak for the GOP. And while we’re here, a single individual does not speak for a party, be it left or right. 2. Notice he said state? 3. How come this hasn’t happened before when there was a republican majority? 4. And this is the most important one, republicans don’t believe in expanding federal law, only reducing it. Which conflicts with the idea of a federal ban. I understand your emotional at the moment, but you’re spreading and becoming a victim of FUD.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > How come this hasn’t happened before when there was a republican majority? About the most aggressive ban that could be passed federally, before Roe was overturned, was passed by Republicans in 2007. > republicans don’t believe in expanding federal law, only reducing it. Which conflicts with the idea of a federal ban. Why'd they pass a 20-week ban federally in 2007? In practice, very few people truly believe in a consistent ideology either way about states' rights. You'll find Democrats that believe things should be left to the states when it benefits them and when Republicans are in power. And you'll find Republicans eager to expand federal spending and powers when they occupy the institutions of power. Also, read what Republicans in Congress are saying publicly: https://www.axios.com/2022/06/24/gop-eyes-federal-abortion-restrictions-dobbs https://www.axios.com/2022/06/24/gop-eyes-federal-abortion-r...
      - tekknik 4y ago
        So to be clear, you’re perfectly ok stabbing a viable fetus in the head? Isn’t that what 2007 was about, not literally murdering babies? Sorry, I don’t agree that the 2007 partial birth abortion ban is wrong.
        mlyle 4y ago
        We're not debating the right or wrong of it-- we're debating your assertion that policymakers won't make federal law about abortion. A) They've indicated that they will, and B) they have before. Nice try to gallop to something you consider more defensible after your previous point was soundly refuted.
tomjen3 4y ago
There is a world of difference between this being an issue of states and it being an issue of the feds. I don't recall abortion in the enumerated powers. For sure they could regulate interstate commerce for the purpose of buying an abortion, but I am not even sure they would have anything to the argument if you were traveling to a place and then got an abortion in a state you were in (even temporarily).

tekknik 4y ago

fabian2k 4y ago
Just like they had no interest in overturning Roe v. Wade? Strategically it's of course a bad idea to do this, but Republicans might not have much of a choice. They have cultivated abortion as a key issue, it is more useful to them as a bogeyman, but if they have the power I don't see how they would not ban it federally as well.
- tekknik 4y ago
  Who said they had no interest in overturning Row v. Wade? It was very clear they wanted it overturned from the beginning.
jmyeet 4y ago
I can't tell if you actually think this or you're just lying but they're already doing this [1]: > Former Vice President Mike Pence said Friday that social conservatives in the post-Roe era “must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the land.” and > Republicans have introduced bills to recognize a right to life from the moment of fertilization, legislation that would prohibit abortion nationwide. [1]: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-06-24/supreme-court-abortion-decision-political-fallout https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-06-24/supreme-co...
- tekknik 4y ago
  1. Pence does no speak for the GOP. And while we’re here, a single individual does not speak for a party, be it left or right. 2. Notice he said state? 3. How come this hasn’t happened before when there was a republican majority? 4. And this is the most important one, republicans don’t believe in expanding federal law, only reducing it. Which conflicts with the idea of a federal ban. I understand your emotional at the moment, but you’re spreading and becoming a victim of FUD.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > How come this hasn’t happened before when there was a republican majority? About the most aggressive ban that could be passed federally, before Roe was overturned, was passed by Republicans in 2007. > republicans don’t believe in expanding federal law, only reducing it. Which conflicts with the idea of a federal ban. Why'd they pass a 20-week ban federally in 2007? In practice, very few people truly believe in a consistent ideology either way about states' rights. You'll find Democrats that believe things should be left to the states when it benefits them and when Republicans are in power. And you'll find Republicans eager to expand federal spending and powers when they occupy the institutions of power. Also, read what Republicans in Congress are saying publicly: https://www.axios.com/2022/06/24/gop-eyes-federal-abortion-restrictions-dobbs https://www.axios.com/2022/06/24/gop-eyes-federal-abortion-r...
    - tekknik 4y ago
      So to be clear, you’re perfectly ok stabbing a viable fetus in the head? Isn’t that what 2007 was about, not literally murdering babies? Sorry, I don’t agree that the 2007 partial birth abortion ban is wrong.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        We're not debating the right or wrong of it-- we're debating your assertion that policymakers won't make federal law about abortion. A) They've indicated that they will, and B) they have before. Nice try to gallop to something you consider more defensible after your previous point was soundly refuted.

tomjen3 4y ago

There is a world of difference between this being an issue of states and it being an issue of the feds. I don't recall abortion in the enumerated powers. For sure they could regulate interstate commerce for the purpose of buying an abortion, but I am not even sure they would have anything to the argument if you were traveling to a place and then got an abortion in a state you were in (even temporarily).