Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,395
- Points
- 1,160
Not sure. But if so, why didn't Biden and Harris do it when they had the chance over the last 4 years?
US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence
- Thread starter kkwd
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 1,783
- Points
- 1,060
because Bidens an old Catholic?
- Reaction score
- 2,543
- Points
- 1,190
Because the house is controlled by the Republicans.
What chance? It happened in 2022. Even if he had, unless the house and the senate agree it won’t be codified.
- Reaction score
- 20,006
- Points
- 1,280
There is. But, as @KevinB remarked upthread, this is a huge voting issue for women in the US.
US election: Women share how abortion shaped their vote
It is the first presidential election since the top court overturned Roe v Wade, which protected the nationwide right to an abortion.
www.bbc.com
Also, there are more women than men in the US. And some of those men who have female partners/family/friends will also vote based on that too.
So yeah. This is a huge issue in the 2024 election.
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,799
- Points
- 1,260
Good, let them choose the candidate based off this issue. Be careful who you vote for, you get the president you deserve.
- Reaction score
- 20,006
- Points
- 1,280
I think this is the first time we’ve agreed on something political.
To be clear, my point on this is on Trump.
Nothing so simple. The court tends to rule on relatively narrow legal points, even if sometimes they can have very significant effects.
A woman who chooses to get an abortion may face different sorts of barriers:
Legislative barriers could look like a state law simply outright prohibiting abortion, with various criteria. No abortion after eight weeks, no abortion at all unless the life of the mother is at stake, etc. These will generally be at the whims of a state legislature.
Regulatory barriers would be regulations imposed on the medical practitioner community that do not have the strength of legislative law outright, but are nonetheless legally binding and enforceable. So long as there’s a law allowing them, the state executive branch can potentially regulate. These might be the exact same things as could be done legislatively. Or it might be something like the mother must have to view an ultrasound of the fetus before the procedure is completed. Or they may say that only certain major hospitals are permitted to perform the procedure, functionally limiting access to major cities. Imagination can be the limit here.
And a woman can face barriers at the level of the individual doctor, generally where out of some moral objection a doctor would not, given the choice, perform the abortion. Legislation and regulation can both permit this - in the sense of explicitly protecting the rights of an individual doctor not to perform the procedure - or circumvent this, probably by requiring an absolute minimal imposition of barriers to have the abortion provided by another doctor.
So that’s a ton of potential law and regulation, mostly at state level.
Roe v Wade in 1973 ruled quite simply that there was a constitutional right to abortion. That basically cut all of the above off at the knees. Not that no barriers remained, but there was no room for most, and ample precedent on which to fight any new ones that sprouted.
The Dobbs decision in 2022 was a straight partisan decision that reversed Roe, returning the issue to state and federal legislatures to do as they please. The president cannot simply override a SCOTUS decision.
At the federal level, I guess an option is to try to enshrine abortion into federal civil rights legislation? But this has the obvious fate of crashing into state jurisdictional rights and going to the courts. Civil rights law is better at creating criminal consequences for active and direct violations of individual rights that are commonly accepted as existing than it is at fingering a new right not otherwise agreed to be in existence. So I don’t know how that would go. Probably not great. The other option we hear Flores is expanding the bench of the Supreme Court to appoint more justices. Obviously under a Democrat president this would mean appointing more judges favourably inclined towards Democrat views on major issues. But doing this would require legislation. Without control of the House and Senate - and killing the Senate filibuster - good luck.
So yeah. That in a nutshell is the state of play, what different levels can do, and the limited options on the federal table.
- Reaction score
- 20,006
- Points
- 1,280
There are also the follow-on effects.
For example, Idaho has one of the most restriction abortion laws. So, surprise surprise, a bunch of their OBGYNs left the state. Now, WA and OR, being next door to the west, are getting an influx of ID patients for (sometimes) life-saving operations.
www.columbian.com
I’m sure that will weigh in on WA and OR (not to mention ID) voters too.
For example, Idaho has one of the most restriction abortion laws. So, surprise surprise, a bunch of their OBGYNs left the state. Now, WA and OR, being next door to the west, are getting an influx of ID patients for (sometimes) life-saving operations.
Washington sees ripple effects of Dobbs decision as Idaho patients seek abortion care
Two years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a 2024 report from Sen. Maria Cantwell’s office reveals the decision caused ripple effects across Washington’s health care system.
www.columbian.com
I’m sure that will weigh in on WA and OR (not to mention ID) voters too.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,848
- Points
- 1,040
If a national abortion law were important enough to Democrats, they could have passed it in the first year of Obama's presidency (they had the presidency, House, and 60 Senate seats). Relying on Roe v Wade never being overturned was an ongoing gamble; it was recognized even by supporters as a weak decision.
Abortion isn't a huge issue in this election when people are asked to rank their top 10 issues. It ranks higher among Democrats, but they're already mostly not voting Republican. They've tried repeatedly to make it a centrepiece, and it hasn't gained traction. Don't confuse intensity with breadth.
Abortion isn't a huge issue in this election when people are asked to rank their top 10 issues. It ranks higher among Democrats, but they're already mostly not voting Republican. They've tried repeatedly to make it a centrepiece, and it hasn't gained traction. Don't confuse intensity with breadth.
- Reaction score
- 20,006
- Points
- 1,280
But once again, going back to @KevinB ‘s example and other posters here, there are the ones who are not declaring either way to polls. Abortion could totally be a top priority for them.
As an aside, I’m not sure how something that affects over 50% of the population (I’m including people who aren’t yet, or are past, childbearing age because they also either have, or will be, affected) is not in the top 10 issues.
yeah, they likely fell for the conservatives who said they were just fear mongering and stuff and had nothing to worry about…
- Reaction score
- 6,359
- Points
- 1,160
While I owe you fuck all, I'll give you the reason for my emoji. Which is more that you're entitled to.
I didn't even read the articles, still haven't, so I know dick about those.
My emoji goes straight to the narrative that started the post. I found it a bit humorous and considering the source, chose the emoji I did.
No big conspiracy (not on my side anyway). No thought of the articles. No ghastly Vlad the Impaler mentality. Just a sense of humour about someone's stance and their 'pulling it out of my ass' narrative. They get the same consideration for their posts as they give to mine.
So you can go sexually intercourse yourself and the horse that brought you in, to be the judge of my morality. Which, once again, you are completely wrong about. However, I fully expect you won't let it go. You've slandered me and attempted to turn the narrative and members against me with your lies and veiled allegations. You simply won't accept you were wrong (you seldom do) and you'll double down with a page long narrative for your like minded amigos. You'll continue to say I don't care about the plight of women, nor will you move from your stance, even with this explaination. It is nothing more than an unbalanced, untrue, unthoughtful opinion of yours.
Rather than set fire to the thread, with your bullshit allegations, you could have used a PM if you were confused. But that wasn't the outcome you were really after, was it bucko. You can't bully someone and lie about them in a PM.
This post is more consideration than you deserve. Take it and move along. I have no interest in hearing a single thing you have to say. I left this thread already to stop petty arguments from wrecking it. I will do so again. I have set the record straight. That's all the extracurricular participation I need.
Fin
- Reaction score
- 20,006
- Points
- 1,280
Why would someone comment (even on emoji) without reading the article?
A response assumes that they have read the post and has enough of an opinion on it to make that comment.
About what I expected. While I didn’t for a second think you would have subjected yourself to the cognitive dissonance that might come from reading the articles, the deaths of the two women were right there in the headlines. That’s what “died” means. You chose what to laugh at. If you don’t like being called on the picture you’ve painted of your own character, and how thoroughly you’ve thrown out the benefit of the doubt over the years, that’s on you.
Since you hopped in laughing at a post that quoted two women dead because they couldn’t get medically necessary abortions, why don’t you tell us what you think about their plight? What is your opinion of Republican policy leaving them to die? This wasn’t women seeking abortion as birth control. It was medically necessary, but Republican legislative policy at the state level, enabled by Trump’s SCOTUS picks, set in motion the events that killed them.
Your boy Trump bragged about “killing” (unfortunate choice of words) Roe v Wade. He has claimed and demanded credit for it. You told us just in the past day or two about how you cross the border into Detroit to volunteer for his campaign. So please, in that light, elaborate about what you think of the plight of women. These two women, in particular.
- Reaction score
- 6,359
- Points
- 1,160
You too can go take a flying fig. I read the narrative that started it, thought it was funny and needed no more participation on my part. Except to put my emoji in. You need to get a life outside the weedbed buddy.
- Reaction score
- 20,006
- Points
- 1,280
I’ll be sure to take it under advisement.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,395
- Points
- 1,160
Harris takes a safer option than appearing on Joe Rogans unscripted Podcast.
Harris Will Make Surprise Appearance on ‘Saturday Night Live’
- Status
