4 ms·

I'm not a Republican, but I think you can make strong points without the inflammatory rhetoric. In fact, I think your rhetoric weakens your argument--Republican

I'm not a Republican, but I think you can make strong points without the inflammatory rhetoric. In fact, I think your rhetoric weakens your argument--Republican women obviously aren't biologically different from Democratic or independent women, they can all suffer from ectopic pregnancy, and Republican women would have the most to lose considering they're presumably more likely to live in states where these laws are passed. Moreover, to the point of this thread, the proper solution is legislative (at the national level) rather than judicial--pass reasonable abortion legislation at the national level.

btilly 4y ago
By what enumerated power does Congress acquire the power to legislate on abortion?
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  IANAL, but I would think 14A’s right to life.
  - btilly 4y ago
    You mean the same 14th amendment that the Supreme Court just ruled does not support a right to abortion? Care to bet how that will go down when said Supreme Court rules the constitutionality of said law?
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      You asked about Congressional power to legislate, not whether 14A grants an abortion right. These are different questions. For example, it seems Congress could plausibly pass a general abortion ban with exceptions for medically necessary abortion under 14A. Moreover, if Congress wants to give itself additional power more explicitly, it could pass an Amendment to give itself authority to legislate on abortion (of course, this requires bipartisan cooperation).
      - btilly 4y ago
        To be clear, you're talking about section 1 of the 14th amendment which reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. First, I thought we were talking about legislation allowing abortion at the federal level. That said, if this court is consistent (not guaranteed), then I still don't agree. This was ratified by states with laws allowing abortion. Therefore an originalist interpretation should not accept that person here refers to the unborn. But I can see THIS court accepting that section 5 gives Congress the power to pass legislation, defining "person" is a proper legislative act, and therefore the Congressional interpretation of a disputed word should be accepted. So sure. Congress can try ban abortion nationally, and might succeed. But I doubt that they can legalize it nationally and have that decision hold. (Separately the amendment process is more complicated. The failure of the Equal Rights Amendment demonstrates that Congress alone cannot create an amendment, even if the public generally supports it.)
ModernMech 4y ago
By "Republicans" of course I mean "Republicans in power who are writing and passing these laws". They largely affluent and largely male dominated. Insofar as women in power are passing these laws, those who will need an abortion will be unaffected by the laws they themselves pass, because they will be able to afford to travel to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. I predict approximately 0 people who have passed these laws will abide by them if their life is on the line.
- smsm42 4y ago
  We are not in the 19th century. There are a lot of Republican women in power. Here's one specifically from Idaho, if we were talking about Idaho laws: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article261271217.html https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/stat... I see no indication Republican women radically differ from Republican men substantially on this issue, at least in the polls I've seen. And if there were, there are enough prominent Republican women that would be able to speak up on the issue. So I think your simplistic take of "patriarchal Republicans oppress women again" is probably a couple of generations late.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin is 59 years old. I don't think she will be affected by a ban on abortion. If she does somehow need an abortion, I'm sure she'll get one in Canada or Washington. As for the poorest women in her state, they will not be able to afford such a luxury, and therefore have to live with the consequences of McGeachin's position while McGeachin herself will not. That's my point.
    - smsm42 4y ago
      You are desperately grasping at straws. There are many conservative young women. Of course a prominent politician would be on the older side - where would you see a 20-year old governor (or lt. governor)? It takes time to climb the ladder. You point is wrong - McGeachin has this position not because it doesn't affect her personally, at least not primarily so, but because a lot of people in her state - yes, including a lot of women, check any serious poll and you'd see women and men differ very little at that question - support this position, and the is the politician that aligns with those people. You may completely disagree with them, and that's fine, that's what the democracy is for - but don't make it about sexism, or age, or anything like that, because it isn't about that at all.

btilly 4y ago

By what enumerated power does Congress acquire the power to legislate on abortion?

throwaway894345 4y ago
IANAL, but I would think 14A’s right to life.
- btilly 4y ago
  You mean the same 14th amendment that the Supreme Court just ruled does not support a right to abortion? Care to bet how that will go down when said Supreme Court rules the constitutionality of said law?
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    You asked about Congressional power to legislate, not whether 14A grants an abortion right. These are different questions. For example, it seems Congress could plausibly pass a general abortion ban with exceptions for medically necessary abortion under 14A. Moreover, if Congress wants to give itself additional power more explicitly, it could pass an Amendment to give itself authority to legislate on abortion (of course, this requires bipartisan cooperation).
    - btilly 4y ago
      To be clear, you're talking about section 1 of the 14th amendment which reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. First, I thought we were talking about legislation allowing abortion at the federal level. That said, if this court is consistent (not guaranteed), then I still don't agree. This was ratified by states with laws allowing abortion. Therefore an originalist interpretation should not accept that person here refers to the unborn. But I can see THIS court accepting that section 5 gives Congress the power to pass legislation, defining "person" is a proper legislative act, and therefore the Congressional interpretation of a disputed word should be accepted. So sure. Congress can try ban abortion nationally, and might succeed. But I doubt that they can legalize it nationally and have that decision hold. (Separately the amendment process is more complicated. The failure of the Equal Rights Amendment demonstrates that Congress alone cannot create an amendment, even if the public generally supports it.)

ModernMech 4y ago

By "Republicans" of course I mean "Republicans in power who are writing and passing these laws". They largely affluent and largely male dominated. Insofar as women in power are passing these laws, those who will need an abortion will be unaffected by the laws they themselves pass, because they will be able to afford to travel to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal. I predict approximately 0 people who have passed these laws will abide by them if their life is on the line.

smsm42 4y ago
We are not in the 19th century. There are a lot of Republican women in power. Here's one specifically from Idaho, if we were talking about Idaho laws: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article261271217.html https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/stat... I see no indication Republican women radically differ from Republican men substantially on this issue, at least in the polls I've seen. And if there were, there are enough prominent Republican women that would be able to speak up on the issue. So I think your simplistic take of "patriarchal Republicans oppress women again" is probably a couple of generations late.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin is 59 years old. I don't think she will be affected by a ban on abortion. If she does somehow need an abortion, I'm sure she'll get one in Canada or Washington. As for the poorest women in her state, they will not be able to afford such a luxury, and therefore have to live with the consequences of McGeachin's position while McGeachin herself will not. That's my point.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    You are desperately grasping at straws. There are many conservative young women. Of course a prominent politician would be on the older side - where would you see a 20-year old governor (or lt. governor)? It takes time to climb the ladder. You point is wrong - McGeachin has this position not because it doesn't affect her personally, at least not primarily so, but because a lot of people in her state - yes, including a lot of women, check any serious poll and you'd see women and men differ very little at that question - support this position, and the is the politician that aligns with those people. You may completely disagree with them, and that's fine, that's what the democracy is for - but don't make it about sexism, or age, or anything like that, because it isn't about that at all.