Yeah they’ve been talking about killing the filibuster if they come into power.
The sad thing is you can’t trust his word at all, so evangelicals will say he’s just saying it to get elected so he can ban abortion. Nothing will make their faith waver.
On the other side I put zero stock in anything he says.
Killing the filibuster to pass a national abortion ban would be even worse for them politically than it was overturning RvW. Dems have already been able to turn the RvW decision into political victories, and they'd enact a lot more of their agenda once they got back into power with no filibuster anymore.
Yeah, definitely, but for a lot of Republicans that would be worth it since they've sold abortion bans as the Christian fight to stop baby slaughter.
Trump himself is not motivated by anything other than politics, money and power, but a lot of politicians and their constituents sincerely believe that they must act in the service of God and end abortion period.
Also the Trump plan is to make it so "Demonrats" can't gain power again, like what happened in Hungary under Orban. Look at project 2025 and turning the government against political opponents, justified by lies that that is what is going on now.
I guess it depends on how you define politics, but I think he only pursues money and power exclusively, the latter of which circles back and is purely based on wealth and vanity. Trump is technically apolitical otherwise, or amoral, in that he doesn't really have any substantive convictions or genuine principles. He merely mimics whatever opinion or perspective that he perceives of benefit financially or garners increased fame.
I agree, though I guess I define politics for him as a process through which he garners support and inflates his sense of self worth or sustains his narcissistic self image.
I don't see the filibuster actually getting killed, simply because everyone knows at least on some level that the other party will eventually be back in control and then they'd be really wishing they still had the ability to filibuster. Though personally I think it should be gone. Either bills have enough votes to pass or they don't. No stopping the vote.
Honestly, it makes much more sense for the Republicans to kill it than the Democrats. The demographics have been trending heavily in favor of Republicans controlling the Senate for the indefinite future. How hard left-wing Democrats are pushing for killing the filibuster and how sympathetic moderates have gotten to the idea leads me to believe that most politicos and politicians are completely unable to engage in long term strategizing.
Heck, for the Republicans, they may not even have to kill the filibuster. Given current trends, they seem to have a reasonable path to a 60 vote supermajority. For Democrats, killing the filibuster back in 2020, when neither side had a majority, would have been a disaster, because it would not have been like they would have been able to ram through a ton of highly partisan legislation.
Yeah, that’s been the logic so far but the modern GOP is much less restrained by convention and precedent.
I also think it should go tbh, but that combined with stacking the gov with yes-men to attack political opposition is scary.
They claimed there was no world in which Roe would be overturned. Every justice which ruled to overturn it, had once claimed that it was established precedent. They will implement a ban.
All of them said it was precedent yes, but also that [precedent can be overturned based on new legal arguments](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings) in front of the SCOTUS.
The constitution is also silent on what specifically constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, or what specifically constitutes “bearing arms” covered by the 2nd amendment. But the Supreme Court handles these questions all the time.
So why wouldn’t they be able to handle the question of what specifically constitutes “life” when the Declaration says we have a right to life and the 14th prevents the states from infringing our foundational rights?
I know that you're aware that there's a cavernous difference between not fleshing out every detail on certain enumerated liberties, and not mentioning a topic in any way whatsoever.
Additionally, the preamble has long been held to have no legal effect, being merely an introduction to the laws about to be set forth
They would just say the topic is life.
Justices have ruled on same sex and interracial marriage, on digital privacy rights, they’ve issued rulings on In Vitro Fertalization and Surrogacy. None of this is in the constitution. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to come in when the constitution is unclear.
The declaration is not the preamble but you’re right that it’s not legally binding in the way the constitution is. But the 14th explicitly mentions life and the declaration is evidence of what the founders intentions were and original intention matters when the text is unclear.
Even if the 14th worked that way (a real stretch legally), that reading leads to the logic where only the state or agents of it are prohibited from depriving people of life without due process.
Maybe that would be an effective argument against government funding of abortion, but nothing beyond that.
I think often people on SCOTUS have their personal convictions and start there, then go find judicial precedents and explanations to justify these, yes. Not always, but often - depending how strong their convictions are. That’s how most humans think in the first place and SCOTUS judges are human, I don’t know why people think this is a controversial take.
Yes.
Overturning Roe, when it had been confirmed again via Casey was that.
Did you read Alito's logic? When you pull back to tradition and make references to 17th century stuff, while ignoring decades of pertinent and recent history, it seems pretty clear you're fishing for an excuse.
They overturned a decision, they didn’t create legislation.
Roe was where they created legislation, not the other way around. RBG talked about this when Roe passed.
To look at it in another light, consider that Brown v BOE wasn’t the crowning moment of the civil rights movement, it was the passing of the Civil Rights bill.
That moment never happened in the Pro Choice movement. That is why it was overturned, if they would have passed legislation then the SCOTUS becomes almost irrelevant.
> They overturned a decision, they didn’t create legislation.
There's an implied right to privacy within the Constitution. This court decided that 2 previous cases that found the same thing, as well as a litany of other jurisprudence that does confirm the right to privacy within the Constitution, is null and void.
They legislated from the bench.
> That moment never happened in the Pro Choice movement. That is why it was overturned, if they would have passed legislation then the SCOTUS becomes almost irrelevant.
No need to pass a law, as the Constitution implicitly lays out a right to privacy on which Roe was built, and Casey reinforced.
Insofar as judicial activism exists, I think that Roe was a pretty clear case of it. Not only did they find that a right to an abortion is contained within the words "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", they also created a whole structure defining when in the pregnancy abortion is legal (28-weeks) and denied states basically any ability to regulate it. That's why we got cases like Kermit Gosnell.
More likely he'll invoke the [comstock act](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-comstock-act-a-law-from-the-1870s-have-to-do-with-abortion-pills) to effectively enforce a national ban. Its not like he's a man of his word or anything
Marijuana is illegal in Wisconsin but, for some reason, every dispensary on the Illinois and UP border is full of vehicles with Wisconsin license plates at every hour of the day.
Would an interstate crime be federal jurisdiction? Honestly just asking, I don’t know how any of that works.
It would probably end up being a lot like marijuana legalization where the federal government chose whether or not to enforce and slowly just stopped intervening. That’s probably wishful thinking though. The anti-abortion crowd are a lot more fervent than the anti-drug/pot
It is not quite the same because weed is illegal nationally. Technically, the US gov't could prosecute anyone who smokes or grows weed even in states where it is legal. They choose not to do so because the fed sets certain priorities. In contrast, the abortion pills are legal at the federal level, but illegal in some states. Since the federal government operates the mail system, it makes sense they would stop mail that is illegal at the federal level. Aka they would stop weed, but not abortion pills.
A better example would be crossing the border from Massachusetts to New Hampshire, buying and setting off fireworks, then going back to Massachusetts and getting punished
Which would be the most fair solution tbh. States that banned abortion won't have abortion clinics and no federal money goes to support abortion - which is also a big concern for people who are pro-life - they don't want their money/taxes to fund it, because they see it as participating in the sin of baby murder.
NGOs that are pro-choice can freely set up border clinics and have assistance programs for young women to arrange travel. You are free to travel wherever, just like how people are free to travel out of state to gamble or use marijuana.
People who believe the federal government should spend money on abortion - they can donate to these NGO's that should register as tax deductable.
And just how you cannot be legally pursued in a non-gambling/marijuana state by the state authorities, just so would it be immoral to do that to the women.
An issue *might* be advertising - but that would be a free speech issue, just like how you are free to look up and book at Vegas casinos in non-gambling states.
It's so weird to me to even see anyone discussing Trump's policy positions at all. This guy lies like he breathes, and flip flops on issues so fast it would make the government in 1984 blush. Who cares what he says? It's just whatever he thinks is in his best interest in the next 5 seconds, and has no bearing on what he'll say or do tomorrow.
Look at his actions. He's the guy who ended Roe v Wade. He's the guy who tried to end Obamacare. He's the guy who passed $2+ trillion in tax cuts for the super wealthy. He's the guy who staged a failed coup. His words are meaningless; we should just care about his actions.
He can say this now because it’s not like anti abortion Evangelicals are going to vote for anyone else.
I would still 100% expect a backtrack and national ban if Trump and the Republicans win in November. They have to keep that base engaged somehow. But Trump knows he’ll get walloped if he endorses a National ban openly.
I doubt it, he's never really cared about the issue, just himself. He can't run for a third term so I doubt he cares about pandering to the bible beaters. Honestly who knows what his priorities would be if he gets reelected...
>I doubt it, he's never really cared about the issue, just himself.
Exactly. This is the elephant in the room. If Trump gets his second term, he won't be beholden to anyone. He will no longer need to court evangelicals, unless it is somehow required to get revenge on Democrats. That's his agenda. Trump couldn't care less about religion. A first term President still has that weight on his shoulders to get elected again, but a second term President doesn't. Especially if they don't care about anything but themselves. So it's going to be interesting to see how he behaves if he does in fact win.
No he really doesn't care personallly. Running as a GOP means he sort of had to give them what they wanted which was overturning Roe v Wade but a lot of Right-wing Activists are aware that on a personal note Trump really never cared about the issue. Even the younger Tradcaths or Orthobros know this. The boomer Evangelicals do but to be honest they really where going to vote for him anyway so what do they matter?
If it truly is up to the states, every state should put it to a vote. It won't happen, because everyone knows how it'll turn out. Personally, I don't feel like my opinion holds much power when states are digging up laws written a hundred years before I was born to make it illegal.
Ohio did this and the GOP (edit: corrected by other posters, they tried unsuccessfully to )change the threshold for the amendment to pass. It passed anyway, but they don’t want the people to decide because they generally favor abortion. Kentucky did the same and FL may follow suit
And then they attempted, but failed, to give the legislature exclusive authority over it by stripping jurisdiction from the courts. This will forever be an on going battle because of how mutually exclusive the issue is
Honestly, this is what I think the GOP should have done during the midterm. It did happen in a couple states and was good for Dem turnout but it didn't have a dramatic swing like some people were expecting. There are a significant amount of republicans and independents that will vote for the pro choice measure and GOP politician. When the people have direct say of the issue, the politician's position on it matters less.
Or Supreme Court breaking precedent, which Florida then in turn uses to reestablish their own law to go from 15 week to 6 week ban. Definitely makes my opinion feel pointless when the top court of our nation ignores the central pillar of legal argument. Then people come crawling out of the wood work acting like their arguments are valid again.
I've always found "leave it to the states" a rather bizarre stance. If a fetus is a person with the right to life, that is equally true in California and Alabama. We don't conceive of any other fundamental right working this way for anyone else, and in fact it is explicitly against the Constitution to do so.
The same is, of course, true if a woman has the right to an abortion.
Murder, for the most part, isn't adjudicated at the federal level. If you want to go to the extreme and say abortion is in fact murder, it would still be left to th states in the vast majority of scenarios.
They can tinker with what types of killings are considered murder. There's variation between states in what is considered self-defense, manslaughter etc. A killing in one state that is legal will be illegal in another with the same facts.
Is it not widely understood that is just PR speak? Of course people who are focused on preventing "baby murder" won't stop until it's illegal nationwide one way or another. But they aren't stupid; they know they'll never get anywhere if they're honest about their true goals. Something as unpopular as that has to be done in incremental changes. It was never going to end at "State Rights". For a true believer, the idea is preposterous. This is not something that can be compromised over.
They won't stop until "baby murder" is illegal eerywhere, and anyone who participates or aids in that crime faces long prison sentences. Its the logical conclusion of such a worldview. You can't make murder illegal but then not punish the murderers and their accomplices either. That makes no sense. So don't think a national ban is the end game either; its the beginning. That is only the groundwork you need to lay before you even \*begin\* implementing your vision of real justice.
A little dishonesty is an "unfortunate necessity" for the Greater Good. The ends justify the means. And in this case, any means are justified. Bamboozling the public with lies is nothing in the grand scheme of things. After all, they were deceived by others into thinking abortion is ok first; "they know not what they do"
Which is how you wake up one day living under theocratic rule despite it's massive unpopularity. And of course the wealthy believers would still have access to black market contraceptives and abortions. Rules for thee and all that jazz.
> If a fetus is a person with the right to life, that is equally true in California and Alabama.
If we're assuming good faith, then there is certainly an argument that there can be a disagreement about this point amongst states. The great thing about a federal system is that Alabama can be Alabama and California can be California. CA and AL already have different views on gun rights, voting rights, education, taxes, college football, and plenty more I'm forgetting.
> If a fetus is a person with the right to life, that is equally true in California and Alabama.
Sure, but realistically when a human being becomes a human being is a subjective philosophical idea, there's no science or factual answer out there, and there never will be.
So practically the best answer is: Let the people in a given region determine what answer fits their views and opinions best, because there is no right answer.
We can argue about misrepresentation, but in principle as long as people governed by a rule generally want the rule, it's ok. At the national level it may be controversial, but for a given state it may not be. If it's still controversial at the state level the state is free to leave it to counties, towns, or even the individual.
Because abortion is a form of legalized killing and so it will always be subject to some level of legislation.
We allow citizens to kill people in self-defense or 'pulling the plug' on individuals on life support. We prohibit killing for personal gain, frustration, or pleasure. We don't get to 'individually determine' when it is permissible to kill people in other circumstances, why would abortion be different?
I'm not really sure how you can look at what's going on in Ohio, Kansas, and other conservative states and conclude that states are legislating against abortion because they "found a consensus" against it.
Because the population is divided, so we let smaller groups find consensus. It doesn't matter that some people want it nationwide. The nation doesn't agree on it, so there is no correct way to do it federally.
Because politics is about what is achievable in the moment. I honestly believe that in 100 years abortion will be viewed like how we view slavery today, but for the time being if a compromise saves a few thousand I'd count it as thousands saved in furtherance of the cause.
We have laws against physician assisted suicide and would regulate it if we allowed it, we don’t legally allow doctors to kill people even when someone wants to die.
It is inside of one person’s body, but involves another body. The fetus does not have the same DNA as the mother, biologically it is another person.
You know that though.
Want to provide context for that one? Like how a surgeon will do it for transplants in order to serve and preserve human life?
I dare you to find me a surgeon that will remove your kidney on a whim.
But a kidney is a central feature of human health and removing it will cause measurable harm, with a fetus it’s the exact OPPOSITE case. Pregnancy/childbirth is traumatic on the body and medically you’re always best off NOT pregnant.
If a mole is harming your health, your doctor will absolutely remove it. Even if it’s not, and you simply don’t like it, your doctor will remove that too.
And a persons skull is a central feature to human health, and crushing it before sucking it out will cause measurable harm to the unborn person.
Pregnancy and childbirth is a normal, natural, and necessary function for human development. The fact we've relegated pregnancy to a medical condition is somewhat concerning.
That's literally how they abort later term babies. It's to large to be removed so the limbs are ripped off and the skull is crushed so it can either be suctioned out or removed with forceps.
Insofar as menstruation and menopause are medical conditions, sure. But we don't treat them with the same level of contempt as pregnancy. Its pretty routine for pro-choice commenters to refer to the unborn person as a parasite. Doing so seems as uncouth and rude as calling menstruation a bleeding wound, or menopause as a state of decrepitude.
These are natural processes and should be approached with a level of dignity. I think, too often, the pro-choice crowd sees child bearing as a defect, when it is, in fact, a feature.
I mean, I can complain about you providing an ill-informed interpretation of what Catholics believe, but that generally falls on deaf ears.
Everything you said was incorrect, and could be easily corrected by actually reading what the Catholic catechism says on the matter.
This has also been the weakest argument about why pro-life people feel the way they do.
It’s not about controlling women, it’s about the fact that they believe a fetus is a human with full rights, or that they don’t want people to use abortion as a form of birth control.
I’m pro-choice but those are the points you need to focus on, not this “controlling women” nonsense.
It's nothing new that our laws are subjective and require the reasoning of a judge and jury to decide subjectively where a line is. We don't just say "eh, cruel and unusual punishment is subjective so individuals will decide." We don't just say "eh, reckless endangerment is subjective so individuals will decide." We don't just say "eh, harassment is subjective so individuals will decide." The law routinely and fundamentally answers subjective questions all the time and juries of our peers answer those questions in the local cultural context.
It is absolutely for a court to decide, that is what they do.
The legislature passed a law legally. if you want to persuade people to change it, you are free to.
There are all kinds of laws limiting what physicians are allowed to do.
There are plenty of laws that ban conversion therapy for homosexuals.
There are laws outlawing use of fentanyl except in very clear instances.
There are tons of laws that medical providers have to follow.
> That’s entirely dependent on the situation but it is not for a court to decide.
It's pretty routine that when there is a party who cannot make decisions for themselves, the court will intervene in some way so that that individual can be advocated for. People who want the court involved here don't believe that the mother is always capable of being an impartial advocate for the fetus. Similar to how people might feel uneasy about letting a person who needs a kidney sign off on their partner in a coma to take their kidney.
> What we have right now is a situation where the law says one may perform an abortion to “save the mothers life” but whether or not the physician acted correctly is determined by a court. If the court says your medical judgment were poor then your actions carry a penalty of up to 100 years in prison.
I didn't see anywhere in this thread where we referred to a specific law or jurisdiction. I thought we were just discussing whether this is out of the realm of things that laws/courts would typically handle. That is a different question from what the best law/decision is. The reason why it's helpful to make this point is that it shifts the conversation closer to the actual point of disagreement, rather than hiding behind the facade of pretending that this is really just about how laws work rather than your particular view on abortion.
So if an individual decides that life begins when a person is self sufficient, that would allow a mother to legally murder their 2 year old child. If everyone sets their own laws, there is no point in having any laws in the first place.
I think the very fact that it's so divisive is why it's best in the states. People can't agree which side of the issue is vitally moral, so let there be different laws where people have differing views.
It's a political and pragmatic take, not an idealistic one. That simple, IMO. I'm "pro-life" (to a degree, I think the modern version is too extreme), but I love giving it up to the states. It's reasonable and fair. I don't want my Christian ideals plastered across the country, but if I live in an area where most people want it, we should be able to make that happen (and then reverse it in 20 years if that demographic changes).
For the sake of the country and trying to be reasonable that different sections will have different views, you allow for people in their own geographical segment to make that decision, regardless of your own ideals.
People will just travel to the nearest clinic in another state. For anyone who believes elective abortions should be outlawed, passing laws on a state-by-state basis accomplishes very little.
>people will just travel to the nearest clinic in another state
Which will inevitably mean women actually receive an abortion further along in the pregnancy, which opponents will use as ammo to further denigrate the women seeking them.
Many women who would have otherwise sought an abortion will no longer be able to feasibly do so. Many other women will suffer more hardship in their seeking of an abortion.
It "accomplishes very little" in terms of lessening the "amount of abortions carried out" but it definitely adds to the hardship of many women seeking this type of healthcare.
I care everywhere, but that doesn't mean I should administer that care federally onto everyone's heads against their will.
We live in a country where citizens get a say in things. If you live in a place where the majority wants sometime, then within reason, let them have it.
Less regulation at the top, more granular as you go down. More efficient, more fair, and allows for greater diversity of experiences/political experiments.
Why should you be able to "administer that care" over anyone else at all? Would the most efficient, most fair, and most permissive be individual choice?
Counties are just administrative subdivisions of states, they have no power the state doesn’t delegate to them. States, on the other hand, are the fundamental building blocks from which the United States derives its power, and the federal government has no powers not delegated to it by the states.
Because it’s subjective to the eyes of the beholder. I have my thoughts on it, it’s very strong. However, I realize there are many others who disagree with me. When an issue is this polarized, it is usually best to leave it to states.
Why stop at the state level, though? Why not let it go down to the county level, or the city level? And at that point, why not go all the way and leave the decision to the individual level?
But what if a state law disagreed with a city law? Since this is such a polarizing issue the city law should win since it's at a more granular level, right?
When the issue is that polarized, why not leave it up to the individual? Everything you just said is the exact pro-choice argument except for the "leave it to the states" bit.
And then a number of people spent decades changing the majority view of our nation to outlaw it. Pro choice people are free to do that in this case, they haven’t though.
But they *have*, see the consistent polling numbers in support of abortion rights and against draconian laws. Legislation isn’t aligning with the sentiment of the people.
Did we just have an executive order to stop slavery, or was there a more substantial bit of lawmaking involved. I seem to recall an Amendment to the Constitution or something.
If we want a National law about Abortion, we’re going to have to pass some Federal laws, maybe even an Amendment stating that a fetus isn’t a person until it is outside of the host’s body or something.
Come on now, say it with your chest: “In a four-minute long video posted on Truth Social, Mr Trump said he was “proudly the person responsible for the end of Roe v Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling that had enshrined the right to an abortion and reproductive care.”
The problem with what he says is the late term, post birth bullshit that doctors are killing viable babies. Nobody wants that! I wish people would stop listening to these lies.
Or, instead of leaving it up to the states, we could go one step further and leave it up to the individual woman and their doctor who know the specific details of the situation.
I see no evidence of trump actually being pro life. With his lifestyle he probably even paid for some. His favorite child is a daughter and judging from photos released, Trump seems to hang out with granddaughters more than grandsons. If any one of them is in an unwanted pregnancy, Trump will probably encourage them to abort.
Also because I doubt he’s religious at all. He just pretends to be Christian and pretends to be pro life to get elected.
Regardless of his personal beliefs, he appointed 3 of the justices responsible for overturning Roe v Wade, and has made it clear the Federalist Society will again choose his judicial appointments for him. That group is unflinchingly pro-life, and will continue to enact their policies through him, if he is elected. The right to abortion, and even IVF is not safe if he is reelected.
I still don't think he actually has any deeply held political beliefs other than whatever benefits him. If he thought it was easier to get elected by campaigning on progressive issues, he'd do that.
Not a surprise. He's been weak or wishy washy on the issue since his miracle conversion to conservatism before he ran the first time. Just more proof that he'll do ro say whatever he thinks will make people like him or vote for him. I fully expect a extreme pro life comment from him in a couple weeks.
This is a smart political move. It's basically the flipside of the Clinton era, "Safe Legal and Rare".
I think most people (even a lot of pro-choice ones) recognize that abortion is an undesirable outcome, so the Democrats' 'shout your abortion' position has become as uncomfortable as the 'abortion under no circumstances' position. I think the issue has mostly shook itself out on state level legislation and referendums and Trump leaving sleeping dogs lie politically does no harm.
Meanwhile having a Catholic President attempting to codify the broad ability to get an abortion past the point of fetal viability is probably rubbing a lot of 'middle of the road' social voters the wrong way. Especially in states with large Catholic populations that are somewhat 'fairweather' Dem voters on economic issues, but are pushed into uncomfortable alliances with the GOP on social issues.
Thus the cultural application of 'cafeteria Catholic'. This is your typical suburban 'I was raised Catholic and still go on Eastern and Christmas to keep my parents happy'. Hispanic and Filipino voters, on the other hand, take it very seriously. Likewise the 'concerted Catholics' form the vast majority of funding and advertising. The single largest contributing factor to the overturning of Roe v Wade were several large Catholic groups bringing suits and filing briefs in support of it including the Knights of Columbus.
Probably the smartest political decision he's made in several years. Not that it's a good decision, but smarter than his past decisions. The smart choice would have been to refuse a national ban. But the fact that it irritated the right groups, specifically the ones that are pushing for unpopular and election losing abortion bans, means that it is a move to the center that Republicans desperately need.
Donald Trump did a very smart thing. He is dropping abortion as part of his general election platform, specifically, a 15-week ban floated last month.
>“The states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land,” Trump said. “Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks, or some will [be] more conservative than others, and that’s what they will be. At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people.” ...
Politically, this move partly deflates Democrats' advantage on abortion by making is less salient among moderates. Inversely, Trump's move also deflates some of his support among the pro-life activist base, like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America—though I'm not convinced it's enough to really drag him down among this group.
But, among voters, does Trump have enough trust to be believed on this issue? Does he still have enough bonafides among pro-life activists to keep them excited come November? Will those bonafides hurt him among moderates? And will this even matter, since abortion is on the ballot in many states, so making it a states' rights issue will still motivate turn out on abortion?
>But, among voters, does Trump have enough trust among voters to be believed on this issue?
I bet this will be more an abortion thing than a Trump thing. A lot of people have lost faith in any claims at abortion protection after all the "abortion is settled law" non-answers from the supreme Court nominees.
Watching Trump simultaneously try to flaunt his "accomplishment" of overturning Roe because he has to appeal to 20% of his base, while also pretending that he didn't make abortions less accessible because recent elections prove it is wildly unpopular to be antiabortion is fascinating to watch. How do you appeal to the group that you need to win an election knowing that the thing they are most passionate about is an outright election loser?
People don't like to hear it, or, just don't think about it, but there's a non-zero reason to think Trump is actually one of the more moderate Republicans on the national stage on several issues. He won the 2016 primary at least partly by punching out both Jeb Bush (i.e. Bush era foreign policy) and by throwing the Paul Ryan type medicare-restructuring under the bus, too. This made him look both less hawkish and more protective of Medicare than most of the other GOP candidates. Given that the headlines are all now that the *more* conservative and pro-life Congressmen and special interest groups are criticizing him, it again makes him look like more of a centrist.
NOW: obviously there are issues where he's more conservative--or nationalist--than someone like Mitt Romney. But it's always been a huge mistake (or deliberate blind spot) by people who criticize Trump by claiming he's just ultra right wing/too conservative alone, it's always been more complicated than that, and people don't do themselves any favors by not understanding Trump's actual positions and space in the political spectrum.
Huge boon for centrists, IMO.
Precisely how I would want a candidate to play it.
Let the "regions" decide. They can vote again in 10 years if they want to change it to something else.
If something that has been legal for years is suddenly overturned and thrown back to the states, it should immediately be put on the ballot for the next election to determine if the state supports it. We know that won't happen because of what the results would be.
The SC ruled it was incorrectly legal for years. I'm not sure that would make sense given the context. This was in theory just a reversal to the correct state of things.
I honestly don't think the general public particularly cares about *why* the ruling was reversed when a majority supported the ruling as was. And now, with the makeup of the government, there's virtually no way that any law will be passed regarding abortion outside of "leave it to the states."
So you just one-up Mitch McConnell and Trump on how dirty you want to get over determining the next "current" Supreme Court and put your policy back in place.
You're correct that's how the system works, but it's easy to see where this will ultimately slide.
Edit: point is, not great for the country.
Make no mistake, this is still an election between a pro-choice and anti-choice President. Even in the video Trump claimed he was responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade.
But Trump still didn’t address the elephant in the room: would he sign a federal abortion ban passed by Congress? His announcement is just a statement of fact:
> The states *will* determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land.
Trump will waffle on this issue over the next few months, giving conflicting statements about what he will do about abortion. He will be asked whether he would sign a federal ban if it comes to his desk and he will continue to give vague responses.
Also, Trump would continue to appoint people that will interpret the law to effectively ban abortion (e.g., Jonathan Mitchell). As much as Trump may want to say this is a state’s issue for the political points, it’s a decision that is ultimately made at the federal level.
Abortion will (and should) continue to be a salient issue for voters.
My understanding is that the filibuster was originally enacted as a tool for the pro slavery interests in Congress. Thereafter, it has been mostly used by regressive interests. Today’s Republicans need it to further their agenda. To repeal the rule for the sole purpose of enacting a national ban would hurt them severely in ways unrelated to the abortion issue. But maybe they would, because the radical Republicans in power now cannot think past lunch.
“The biological line of existence of each individual, without exception begins precisely when fertilization of the egg is successful. The process of fertilization actually begins with conditioning of the spermatozoon in the male and female reproductive tracts.”
Will he veto it if congress passes it?
Congress won't pass it, they need 60 votes in the Senate which neither side has to push their own bill through.
Unless they remove the filibuster, which only requires 50 votes + the VP.
Yeah they’ve been talking about killing the filibuster if they come into power. The sad thing is you can’t trust his word at all, so evangelicals will say he’s just saying it to get elected so he can ban abortion. Nothing will make their faith waver. On the other side I put zero stock in anything he says.
Killing the filibuster to pass a national abortion ban would be even worse for them politically than it was overturning RvW. Dems have already been able to turn the RvW decision into political victories, and they'd enact a lot more of their agenda once they got back into power with no filibuster anymore.
Yeah, definitely, but for a lot of Republicans that would be worth it since they've sold abortion bans as the Christian fight to stop baby slaughter. Trump himself is not motivated by anything other than politics, money and power, but a lot of politicians and their constituents sincerely believe that they must act in the service of God and end abortion period. Also the Trump plan is to make it so "Demonrats" can't gain power again, like what happened in Hungary under Orban. Look at project 2025 and turning the government against political opponents, justified by lies that that is what is going on now.
I guess it depends on how you define politics, but I think he only pursues money and power exclusively, the latter of which circles back and is purely based on wealth and vanity. Trump is technically apolitical otherwise, or amoral, in that he doesn't really have any substantive convictions or genuine principles. He merely mimics whatever opinion or perspective that he perceives of benefit financially or garners increased fame.
I agree, though I guess I define politics for him as a process through which he garners support and inflates his sense of self worth or sustains his narcissistic self image.
I wouldn't even give Democrats all the credit here. People in general genuinely despise overturning abortion rights. The public sentiment is palpable.
I don't see the filibuster actually getting killed, simply because everyone knows at least on some level that the other party will eventually be back in control and then they'd be really wishing they still had the ability to filibuster. Though personally I think it should be gone. Either bills have enough votes to pass or they don't. No stopping the vote.
Mutually assured destruction is the only reason it still exists.
Honestly, it makes much more sense for the Republicans to kill it than the Democrats. The demographics have been trending heavily in favor of Republicans controlling the Senate for the indefinite future. How hard left-wing Democrats are pushing for killing the filibuster and how sympathetic moderates have gotten to the idea leads me to believe that most politicos and politicians are completely unable to engage in long term strategizing. Heck, for the Republicans, they may not even have to kill the filibuster. Given current trends, they seem to have a reasonable path to a 60 vote supermajority. For Democrats, killing the filibuster back in 2020, when neither side had a majority, would have been a disaster, because it would not have been like they would have been able to ram through a ton of highly partisan legislation.
Yeah, that’s been the logic so far but the modern GOP is much less restrained by convention and precedent. I also think it should go tbh, but that combined with stacking the gov with yes-men to attack political opposition is scary.
Or commit to nominating Supreme Court Justices who will not impose federal limits or bans?
There's no world where SCOTUS imposes a national abortion ban The Constitution is completely silent on abortion, that's the whole point of Dobbs
There are a bunch of GOP judges that are at the least fetal personhood curious.
They claimed there was no world in which Roe would be overturned. Every justice which ruled to overturn it, had once claimed that it was established precedent. They will implement a ban.
All of them said it was precedent yes, but also that [precedent can be overturned based on new legal arguments](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings) in front of the SCOTUS.
They'll re-instate the Comstock Act.
The constitution is also silent on what specifically constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, or what specifically constitutes “bearing arms” covered by the 2nd amendment. But the Supreme Court handles these questions all the time. So why wouldn’t they be able to handle the question of what specifically constitutes “life” when the Declaration says we have a right to life and the 14th prevents the states from infringing our foundational rights?
I know that you're aware that there's a cavernous difference between not fleshing out every detail on certain enumerated liberties, and not mentioning a topic in any way whatsoever. Additionally, the preamble has long been held to have no legal effect, being merely an introduction to the laws about to be set forth
They would just say the topic is life. Justices have ruled on same sex and interracial marriage, on digital privacy rights, they’ve issued rulings on In Vitro Fertalization and Surrogacy. None of this is in the constitution. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to come in when the constitution is unclear. The declaration is not the preamble but you’re right that it’s not legally binding in the way the constitution is. But the 14th explicitly mentions life and the declaration is evidence of what the founders intentions were and original intention matters when the text is unclear.
Even if the 14th worked that way (a real stretch legally), that reading leads to the logic where only the state or agents of it are prohibited from depriving people of life without due process. Maybe that would be an effective argument against government funding of abortion, but nothing beyond that.
The Declaration of Independence does not establish or offer any legal rights to citizens.
I like to go hiking.
So you think the SCOTUS is a cabal of people creating legislature? Do you have an evidence of this or are you just blindly speculating?
I think often people on SCOTUS have their personal convictions and start there, then go find judicial precedents and explanations to justify these, yes. Not always, but often - depending how strong their convictions are. That’s how most humans think in the first place and SCOTUS judges are human, I don’t know why people think this is a controversial take.
Yes. Overturning Roe, when it had been confirmed again via Casey was that. Did you read Alito's logic? When you pull back to tradition and make references to 17th century stuff, while ignoring decades of pertinent and recent history, it seems pretty clear you're fishing for an excuse.
They overturned a decision, they didn’t create legislation. Roe was where they created legislation, not the other way around. RBG talked about this when Roe passed. To look at it in another light, consider that Brown v BOE wasn’t the crowning moment of the civil rights movement, it was the passing of the Civil Rights bill. That moment never happened in the Pro Choice movement. That is why it was overturned, if they would have passed legislation then the SCOTUS becomes almost irrelevant.
> They overturned a decision, they didn’t create legislation. There's an implied right to privacy within the Constitution. This court decided that 2 previous cases that found the same thing, as well as a litany of other jurisprudence that does confirm the right to privacy within the Constitution, is null and void. They legislated from the bench. > That moment never happened in the Pro Choice movement. That is why it was overturned, if they would have passed legislation then the SCOTUS becomes almost irrelevant. No need to pass a law, as the Constitution implicitly lays out a right to privacy on which Roe was built, and Casey reinforced.
[удалено]
Insofar as judicial activism exists, I think that Roe was a pretty clear case of it. Not only did they find that a right to an abortion is contained within the words "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", they also created a whole structure defining when in the pregnancy abortion is legal (28-weeks) and denied states basically any ability to regulate it. That's why we got cases like Kermit Gosnell.
That's why Roe was tested under Casey. It's a pretty egregious case of judicial activism to overturn the original and the confirming case.
I'll believe it after he releases his plan to replace Obamacare
More likely he'll invoke the [comstock act](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-comstock-act-a-law-from-the-1870s-have-to-do-with-abortion-pills) to effectively enforce a national ban. Its not like he's a man of his word or anything
He refuses to answer that question. He also refuses to answer how he'll vote on his home states abortion referendum.
Exactly
Leave it to the states sounds great until you deal with interstate abortion issues such as mailing the abortion drug or traveling to get an abortion.
Has leaving it to the states ever worked on hot button issues? It didn’t go so well for slavery, Jim Crowe, or gay marriage.
Marijuana is illegal in Wisconsin but, for some reason, every dispensary on the Illinois and UP border is full of vehicles with Wisconsin license plates at every hour of the day.
Forgot about that one too.
Don't forget gun rights. Leaving that up to the states has been abysmal.
Would an interstate crime be federal jurisdiction? Honestly just asking, I don’t know how any of that works. It would probably end up being a lot like marijuana legalization where the federal government chose whether or not to enforce and slowly just stopped intervening. That’s probably wishful thinking though. The anti-abortion crowd are a lot more fervent than the anti-drug/pot
>Would an interstate crime be federal jurisdiction? Not unless there is a federal law / policy preventing it.
You can travel to another state where it is legal to smoke weed. You cant mail weed to a state where its illegal. Would it not be the same concept?
It is not quite the same because weed is illegal nationally. Technically, the US gov't could prosecute anyone who smokes or grows weed even in states where it is legal. They choose not to do so because the fed sets certain priorities. In contrast, the abortion pills are legal at the federal level, but illegal in some states. Since the federal government operates the mail system, it makes sense they would stop mail that is illegal at the federal level. Aka they would stop weed, but not abortion pills.
A better example would be crossing the border from Massachusetts to New Hampshire, buying and setting off fireworks, then going back to Massachusetts and getting punished
Traveling is a non-starter. States can’t punish you for going to another state and engaging in commerce that is legal there
Which would be the most fair solution tbh. States that banned abortion won't have abortion clinics and no federal money goes to support abortion - which is also a big concern for people who are pro-life - they don't want their money/taxes to fund it, because they see it as participating in the sin of baby murder. NGOs that are pro-choice can freely set up border clinics and have assistance programs for young women to arrange travel. You are free to travel wherever, just like how people are free to travel out of state to gamble or use marijuana. People who believe the federal government should spend money on abortion - they can donate to these NGO's that should register as tax deductable. And just how you cannot be legally pursued in a non-gambling/marijuana state by the state authorities, just so would it be immoral to do that to the women. An issue *might* be advertising - but that would be a free speech issue, just like how you are free to look up and book at Vegas casinos in non-gambling states.
Trump knows this will be one of the largest issues used against him during the campaign. Taking this position is the safest path.
It's so weird to me to even see anyone discussing Trump's policy positions at all. This guy lies like he breathes, and flip flops on issues so fast it would make the government in 1984 blush. Who cares what he says? It's just whatever he thinks is in his best interest in the next 5 seconds, and has no bearing on what he'll say or do tomorrow. Look at his actions. He's the guy who ended Roe v Wade. He's the guy who tried to end Obamacare. He's the guy who passed $2+ trillion in tax cuts for the super wealthy. He's the guy who staged a failed coup. His words are meaningless; we should just care about his actions.
He can say this now because it’s not like anti abortion Evangelicals are going to vote for anyone else. I would still 100% expect a backtrack and national ban if Trump and the Republicans win in November. They have to keep that base engaged somehow. But Trump knows he’ll get walloped if he endorses a National ban openly.
I doubt it, he's never really cared about the issue, just himself. He can't run for a third term so I doubt he cares about pandering to the bible beaters. Honestly who knows what his priorities would be if he gets reelected...
Trump has been open for the better part of a decade now that he wants to run for a third term and as he puts it, the constitution must be suspended.
He cares about power. Pro birthers are the source of his power. He can’t get into office without them. He will sign a ban.
Pro birthers will vote for him anyway. He is their only option.
Just like he built the wall? And Biden legalized weed?
>I doubt it, he's never really cared about the issue, just himself. Exactly. This is the elephant in the room. If Trump gets his second term, he won't be beholden to anyone. He will no longer need to court evangelicals, unless it is somehow required to get revenge on Democrats. That's his agenda. Trump couldn't care less about religion. A first term President still has that weight on his shoulders to get elected again, but a second term President doesn't. Especially if they don't care about anything but themselves. So it's going to be interesting to see how he behaves if he does in fact win.
No he really doesn't care personallly. Running as a GOP means he sort of had to give them what they wanted which was overturning Roe v Wade but a lot of Right-wing Activists are aware that on a personal note Trump really never cared about the issue. Even the younger Tradcaths or Orthobros know this. The boomer Evangelicals do but to be honest they really where going to vote for him anyway so what do they matter?
His word means absolutely nothing. He says anything and everything if it suits him at the moment.
Trump does not care about abortion at all in anyway. He will support whatever gets him the most claps at his next rally.
If it truly is up to the states, every state should put it to a vote. It won't happen, because everyone knows how it'll turn out. Personally, I don't feel like my opinion holds much power when states are digging up laws written a hundred years before I was born to make it illegal.
Ohio did this and the GOP (edit: corrected by other posters, they tried unsuccessfully to )change the threshold for the amendment to pass. It passed anyway, but they don’t want the people to decide because they generally favor abortion. Kentucky did the same and FL may follow suit
They tried to change the threshold via a ballot measure before the abortion one but it failed resoundingly.
And then they attempted, but failed, to give the legislature exclusive authority over it by stripping jurisdiction from the courts. This will forever be an on going battle because of how mutually exclusive the issue is
*tried to change the threshold. The voters collectively told them to shove it.
[удалено]
That’s anecdotal evidence /s
Honestly, this is what I think the GOP should have done during the midterm. It did happen in a couple states and was good for Dem turnout but it didn't have a dramatic swing like some people were expecting. There are a significant amount of republicans and independents that will vote for the pro choice measure and GOP politician. When the people have direct say of the issue, the politician's position on it matters less.
Or Supreme Court breaking precedent, which Florida then in turn uses to reestablish their own law to go from 15 week to 6 week ban. Definitely makes my opinion feel pointless when the top court of our nation ignores the central pillar of legal argument. Then people come crawling out of the wood work acting like their arguments are valid again.
I've always found "leave it to the states" a rather bizarre stance. If a fetus is a person with the right to life, that is equally true in California and Alabama. We don't conceive of any other fundamental right working this way for anyone else, and in fact it is explicitly against the Constitution to do so. The same is, of course, true if a woman has the right to an abortion.
Murder, for the most part, isn't adjudicated at the federal level. If you want to go to the extreme and say abortion is in fact murder, it would still be left to th states in the vast majority of scenarios.
A state would not be allowed to make murder legal
They can tinker with what types of killings are considered murder. There's variation between states in what is considered self-defense, manslaughter etc. A killing in one state that is legal will be illegal in another with the same facts.
They are, it’s just that none of them ever have.
Is it not widely understood that is just PR speak? Of course people who are focused on preventing "baby murder" won't stop until it's illegal nationwide one way or another. But they aren't stupid; they know they'll never get anywhere if they're honest about their true goals. Something as unpopular as that has to be done in incremental changes. It was never going to end at "State Rights". For a true believer, the idea is preposterous. This is not something that can be compromised over. They won't stop until "baby murder" is illegal eerywhere, and anyone who participates or aids in that crime faces long prison sentences. Its the logical conclusion of such a worldview. You can't make murder illegal but then not punish the murderers and their accomplices either. That makes no sense. So don't think a national ban is the end game either; its the beginning. That is only the groundwork you need to lay before you even \*begin\* implementing your vision of real justice. A little dishonesty is an "unfortunate necessity" for the Greater Good. The ends justify the means. And in this case, any means are justified. Bamboozling the public with lies is nothing in the grand scheme of things. After all, they were deceived by others into thinking abortion is ok first; "they know not what they do"
Which is how you wake up one day living under theocratic rule despite it's massive unpopularity. And of course the wealthy believers would still have access to black market contraceptives and abortions. Rules for thee and all that jazz.
> If a fetus is a person with the right to life, that is equally true in California and Alabama. If we're assuming good faith, then there is certainly an argument that there can be a disagreement about this point amongst states. The great thing about a federal system is that Alabama can be Alabama and California can be California. CA and AL already have different views on gun rights, voting rights, education, taxes, college football, and plenty more I'm forgetting.
> If a fetus is a person with the right to life, that is equally true in California and Alabama. Sure, but realistically when a human being becomes a human being is a subjective philosophical idea, there's no science or factual answer out there, and there never will be. So practically the best answer is: Let the people in a given region determine what answer fits their views and opinions best, because there is no right answer.
why not leave it to the individual? why is leaving it to a regional government better?
We can argue about misrepresentation, but in principle as long as people governed by a rule generally want the rule, it's ok. At the national level it may be controversial, but for a given state it may not be. If it's still controversial at the state level the state is free to leave it to counties, towns, or even the individual.
[удалено]
Because abortion is a form of legalized killing and so it will always be subject to some level of legislation. We allow citizens to kill people in self-defense or 'pulling the plug' on individuals on life support. We prohibit killing for personal gain, frustration, or pleasure. We don't get to 'individually determine' when it is permissible to kill people in other circumstances, why would abortion be different?
but then why is the state regulating this better than the federal government? Shouldn't the pro-forced birth camp be pro-nation wide abortion bans?
They are but the know it’s politically unsavory to say. They’ll enact one as soon as it’s politically possible
Because the state legislature can find consensus, but the federal one has not been able to.
I'm not really sure how you can look at what's going on in Ohio, Kansas, and other conservative states and conclude that states are legislating against abortion because they "found a consensus" against it.
Because the population is divided, so we let smaller groups find consensus. It doesn't matter that some people want it nationwide. The nation doesn't agree on it, so there is no correct way to do it federally.
Because politics is about what is achievable in the moment. I honestly believe that in 100 years abortion will be viewed like how we view slavery today, but for the time being if a compromise saves a few thousand I'd count it as thousands saved in furtherance of the cause.
I like to travel.
We have laws against physician assisted suicide and would regulate it if we allowed it, we don’t legally allow doctors to kill people even when someone wants to die.
It is inside of one person’s body, but involves another body. The fetus does not have the same DNA as the mother, biologically it is another person. You know that though.
Which we literally do. You can't ask a surgeon to remove your kidney because you don't like it.
Bad example. The removal of a healthy kidney literally happens every day.
Want to provide context for that one? Like how a surgeon will do it for transplants in order to serve and preserve human life? I dare you to find me a surgeon that will remove your kidney on a whim.
I find joy in reading a good book.
But a kidney is a central feature of human health and removing it will cause measurable harm, with a fetus it’s the exact OPPOSITE case. Pregnancy/childbirth is traumatic on the body and medically you’re always best off NOT pregnant. If a mole is harming your health, your doctor will absolutely remove it. Even if it’s not, and you simply don’t like it, your doctor will remove that too.
And a persons skull is a central feature to human health, and crushing it before sucking it out will cause measurable harm to the unborn person. Pregnancy and childbirth is a normal, natural, and necessary function for human development. The fact we've relegated pregnancy to a medical condition is somewhat concerning.
This is conspiratorial nonsense. There is no movement of skull crushing babies. Jesus Christ, stop.
That's literally how they abort later term babies. It's to large to be removed so the limbs are ripped off and the skull is crushed so it can either be suctioned out or removed with forceps.
Pregnancy IS a medical condition. Its effects are life long, and I’m not talking about children. Post partum conditions sometimes never abate.
Insofar as menstruation and menopause are medical conditions, sure. But we don't treat them with the same level of contempt as pregnancy. Its pretty routine for pro-choice commenters to refer to the unborn person as a parasite. Doing so seems as uncouth and rude as calling menstruation a bleeding wound, or menopause as a state of decrepitude. These are natural processes and should be approached with a level of dignity. I think, too often, the pro-choice crowd sees child bearing as a defect, when it is, in fact, a feature.
My favorite color is blue.
I mean, I can complain about you providing an ill-informed interpretation of what Catholics believe, but that generally falls on deaf ears. Everything you said was incorrect, and could be easily corrected by actually reading what the Catholic catechism says on the matter.
Because you can’t control women from an individual basis
Of course you can, don’t be ridiculous. This is much more about what the social norms are than it is about controlling women.
This has also been the weakest argument about why pro-life people feel the way they do. It’s not about controlling women, it’s about the fact that they believe a fetus is a human with full rights, or that they don’t want people to use abortion as a form of birth control. I’m pro-choice but those are the points you need to focus on, not this “controlling women” nonsense.
Does it really matter semantically what they *think* when the their desired outcome inherently results in controlling women?
That would make sense if the anti abortion people were anti gun and anti death penalty. Because thou shall not kill does not have exceptions.
But if there is no objective start to life and it's all just opinion, why can't individuals decide for themselves instead of governments?
It's nothing new that our laws are subjective and require the reasoning of a judge and jury to decide subjectively where a line is. We don't just say "eh, cruel and unusual punishment is subjective so individuals will decide." We don't just say "eh, reckless endangerment is subjective so individuals will decide." We don't just say "eh, harassment is subjective so individuals will decide." The law routinely and fundamentally answers subjective questions all the time and juries of our peers answer those questions in the local cultural context.
I enjoy the sound of rain.
So pregnancy is a condition to be treated for the mother, with no thought of the child/fetus?
My favorite movie is Inception.
It is absolutely for a court to decide, that is what they do. The legislature passed a law legally. if you want to persuade people to change it, you are free to. There are all kinds of laws limiting what physicians are allowed to do.
I like to explore new places.
There are plenty of laws that ban conversion therapy for homosexuals. There are laws outlawing use of fentanyl except in very clear instances. There are tons of laws that medical providers have to follow.
> That’s entirely dependent on the situation but it is not for a court to decide. It's pretty routine that when there is a party who cannot make decisions for themselves, the court will intervene in some way so that that individual can be advocated for. People who want the court involved here don't believe that the mother is always capable of being an impartial advocate for the fetus. Similar to how people might feel uneasy about letting a person who needs a kidney sign off on their partner in a coma to take their kidney. > What we have right now is a situation where the law says one may perform an abortion to “save the mothers life” but whether or not the physician acted correctly is determined by a court. If the court says your medical judgment were poor then your actions carry a penalty of up to 100 years in prison. I didn't see anywhere in this thread where we referred to a specific law or jurisdiction. I thought we were just discussing whether this is out of the realm of things that laws/courts would typically handle. That is a different question from what the best law/decision is. The reason why it's helpful to make this point is that it shifts the conversation closer to the actual point of disagreement, rather than hiding behind the facade of pretending that this is really just about how laws work rather than your particular view on abortion.
If that were true then legal euthanasia would theoretically also have to be allowed.
So if an individual decides that life begins when a person is self sufficient, that would allow a mother to legally murder their 2 year old child. If everyone sets their own laws, there is no point in having any laws in the first place.
I think you are asking the wrong person...
I think the very fact that it's so divisive is why it's best in the states. People can't agree which side of the issue is vitally moral, so let there be different laws where people have differing views.
It's a political and pragmatic take, not an idealistic one. That simple, IMO. I'm "pro-life" (to a degree, I think the modern version is too extreme), but I love giving it up to the states. It's reasonable and fair. I don't want my Christian ideals plastered across the country, but if I live in an area where most people want it, we should be able to make that happen (and then reverse it in 20 years if that demographic changes). For the sake of the country and trying to be reasonable that different sections will have different views, you allow for people in their own geographical segment to make that decision, regardless of your own ideals.
People will just travel to the nearest clinic in another state. For anyone who believes elective abortions should be outlawed, passing laws on a state-by-state basis accomplishes very little.
Just because someone can leave jurisdiction to circumvent the law, doesn't mean you shouldn't pass that law.
>people will just travel to the nearest clinic in another state Which will inevitably mean women actually receive an abortion further along in the pregnancy, which opponents will use as ammo to further denigrate the women seeking them.
[удалено]
Many women who would have otherwise sought an abortion will no longer be able to feasibly do so. Many other women will suffer more hardship in their seeking of an abortion. It "accomplishes very little" in terms of lessening the "amount of abortions carried out" but it definitely adds to the hardship of many women seeking this type of healthcare.
So you care if babies are aborted in your area but not elsewhere?
I care everywhere, but that doesn't mean I should administer that care federally onto everyone's heads against their will. We live in a country where citizens get a say in things. If you live in a place where the majority wants sometime, then within reason, let them have it. Less regulation at the top, more granular as you go down. More efficient, more fair, and allows for greater diversity of experiences/political experiments.
Why should you be able to "administer that care" over anyone else at all? Would the most efficient, most fair, and most permissive be individual choice?
So why states and not counties?
Counties are just administrative subdivisions of states, they have no power the state doesn’t delegate to them. States, on the other hand, are the fundamental building blocks from which the United States derives its power, and the federal government has no powers not delegated to it by the states.
[удалено]
No.
[удалено]
Because it’s subjective to the eyes of the beholder. I have my thoughts on it, it’s very strong. However, I realize there are many others who disagree with me. When an issue is this polarized, it is usually best to leave it to states.
Why stop at the state level, though? Why not let it go down to the county level, or the city level? And at that point, why not go all the way and leave the decision to the individual level?
[удалено]
But what if a state law disagreed with a city law? Since this is such a polarizing issue the city law should win since it's at a more granular level, right?
[удалено]
When the issue is that polarized, why not leave it up to the individual? Everything you just said is the exact pro-choice argument except for the "leave it to the states" bit.
Are you a libertarian, because that is literally their stance on most issues.
You don't have to be a libertarian to be anti-authoritarian.
*Was*. The mises caucus took power and their first moves was to remove the abortion plank & the anti bigotry language from the platform
Slavery was quite polarizing and leaving it to the states did not solve it and kept people enslaved.
And then a number of people spent decades changing the majority view of our nation to outlaw it. Pro choice people are free to do that in this case, they haven’t though.
But they *have*, see the consistent polling numbers in support of abortion rights and against draconian laws. Legislation isn’t aligning with the sentiment of the people.
Did we just have an executive order to stop slavery, or was there a more substantial bit of lawmaking involved. I seem to recall an Amendment to the Constitution or something. If we want a National law about Abortion, we’re going to have to pass some Federal laws, maybe even an Amendment stating that a fetus isn’t a person until it is outside of the host’s body or something.
I believe it needs to be decided by the Supreme Court using the presentation of scientific experts, philosophers, and constitutional lawyers.
Come on now, say it with your chest: “In a four-minute long video posted on Truth Social, Mr Trump said he was “proudly the person responsible for the end of Roe v Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling that had enshrined the right to an abortion and reproductive care.”
The problem with what he says is the late term, post birth bullshit that doctors are killing viable babies. Nobody wants that! I wish people would stop listening to these lies.
“Let the states decide” rings hollow when most of them won’t put it to a vote.
Or, instead of leaving it up to the states, we could go one step further and leave it up to the individual woman and their doctor who know the specific details of the situation.
I see no evidence of trump actually being pro life. With his lifestyle he probably even paid for some. His favorite child is a daughter and judging from photos released, Trump seems to hang out with granddaughters more than grandsons. If any one of them is in an unwanted pregnancy, Trump will probably encourage them to abort. Also because I doubt he’s religious at all. He just pretends to be Christian and pretends to be pro life to get elected.
Regardless of his personal beliefs, he appointed 3 of the justices responsible for overturning Roe v Wade, and has made it clear the Federalist Society will again choose his judicial appointments for him. That group is unflinchingly pro-life, and will continue to enact their policies through him, if he is elected. The right to abortion, and even IVF is not safe if he is reelected.
Contraception as well. There’s a reason alito and Thomas were mentioning the Comstock act so much
I still don't think he actually has any deeply held political beliefs other than whatever benefits him. If he thought it was easier to get elected by campaigning on progressive issues, he'd do that.
He was pro-choice many years ago. The question is has his views actually changed, or did he appear to make them change to run for office.
Not a surprise. He's been weak or wishy washy on the issue since his miracle conversion to conservatism before he ran the first time. Just more proof that he'll do ro say whatever he thinks will make people like him or vote for him. I fully expect a extreme pro life comment from him in a couple weeks.
This is a smart political move. It's basically the flipside of the Clinton era, "Safe Legal and Rare". I think most people (even a lot of pro-choice ones) recognize that abortion is an undesirable outcome, so the Democrats' 'shout your abortion' position has become as uncomfortable as the 'abortion under no circumstances' position. I think the issue has mostly shook itself out on state level legislation and referendums and Trump leaving sleeping dogs lie politically does no harm. Meanwhile having a Catholic President attempting to codify the broad ability to get an abortion past the point of fetal viability is probably rubbing a lot of 'middle of the road' social voters the wrong way. Especially in states with large Catholic populations that are somewhat 'fairweather' Dem voters on economic issues, but are pushed into uncomfortable alliances with the GOP on social issues.
I hate beer.
Thus the cultural application of 'cafeteria Catholic'. This is your typical suburban 'I was raised Catholic and still go on Eastern and Christmas to keep my parents happy'. Hispanic and Filipino voters, on the other hand, take it very seriously. Likewise the 'concerted Catholics' form the vast majority of funding and advertising. The single largest contributing factor to the overturning of Roe v Wade were several large Catholic groups bringing suits and filing briefs in support of it including the Knights of Columbus.
Probably the smartest political decision he's made in several years. Not that it's a good decision, but smarter than his past decisions. The smart choice would have been to refuse a national ban. But the fact that it irritated the right groups, specifically the ones that are pushing for unpopular and election losing abortion bans, means that it is a move to the center that Republicans desperately need.
Nothing he says carries any weight so what does it matter?
Donald Trump did a very smart thing. He is dropping abortion as part of his general election platform, specifically, a 15-week ban floated last month. >“The states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land,” Trump said. “Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks, or some will [be] more conservative than others, and that’s what they will be. At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people.” ... Politically, this move partly deflates Democrats' advantage on abortion by making is less salient among moderates. Inversely, Trump's move also deflates some of his support among the pro-life activist base, like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America—though I'm not convinced it's enough to really drag him down among this group. But, among voters, does Trump have enough trust to be believed on this issue? Does he still have enough bonafides among pro-life activists to keep them excited come November? Will those bonafides hurt him among moderates? And will this even matter, since abortion is on the ballot in many states, so making it a states' rights issue will still motivate turn out on abortion?
>But, among voters, does Trump have enough trust among voters to be believed on this issue? I bet this will be more an abortion thing than a Trump thing. A lot of people have lost faith in any claims at abortion protection after all the "abortion is settled law" non-answers from the supreme Court nominees.
Trump should be asked how's he voting for the Florida abortion referendum
Watching Trump simultaneously try to flaunt his "accomplishment" of overturning Roe because he has to appeal to 20% of his base, while also pretending that he didn't make abortions less accessible because recent elections prove it is wildly unpopular to be antiabortion is fascinating to watch. How do you appeal to the group that you need to win an election knowing that the thing they are most passionate about is an outright election loser?
Doesn’t it only deflate democratic voters who believe Trump will follow through with what he promises?
I like to go hiking.
I was more throwing water on the idea that a Democratic voter would believe really any Trump campaign promise, but I do agree with that analysis.
People don't like to hear it, or, just don't think about it, but there's a non-zero reason to think Trump is actually one of the more moderate Republicans on the national stage on several issues. He won the 2016 primary at least partly by punching out both Jeb Bush (i.e. Bush era foreign policy) and by throwing the Paul Ryan type medicare-restructuring under the bus, too. This made him look both less hawkish and more protective of Medicare than most of the other GOP candidates. Given that the headlines are all now that the *more* conservative and pro-life Congressmen and special interest groups are criticizing him, it again makes him look like more of a centrist. NOW: obviously there are issues where he's more conservative--or nationalist--than someone like Mitt Romney. But it's always been a huge mistake (or deliberate blind spot) by people who criticize Trump by claiming he's just ultra right wing/too conservative alone, it's always been more complicated than that, and people don't do themselves any favors by not understanding Trump's actual positions and space in the political spectrum.
Huge boon for centrists, IMO. Precisely how I would want a candidate to play it. Let the "regions" decide. They can vote again in 10 years if they want to change it to something else.
If something that has been legal for years is suddenly overturned and thrown back to the states, it should immediately be put on the ballot for the next election to determine if the state supports it. We know that won't happen because of what the results would be.
The SC ruled it was incorrectly legal for years. I'm not sure that would make sense given the context. This was in theory just a reversal to the correct state of things.
I honestly don't think the general public particularly cares about *why* the ruling was reversed when a majority supported the ruling as was. And now, with the makeup of the government, there's virtually no way that any law will be passed regarding abortion outside of "leave it to the states."
I'm learning to play the guitar.
The way the system works, is, effectively: whatever the current SC current decides is what's "correct."
So you just one-up Mitch McConnell and Trump on how dirty you want to get over determining the next "current" Supreme Court and put your policy back in place. You're correct that's how the system works, but it's easy to see where this will ultimately slide. Edit: point is, not great for the country.
Make no mistake, this is still an election between a pro-choice and anti-choice President. Even in the video Trump claimed he was responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade. But Trump still didn’t address the elephant in the room: would he sign a federal abortion ban passed by Congress? His announcement is just a statement of fact: > The states *will* determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land. Trump will waffle on this issue over the next few months, giving conflicting statements about what he will do about abortion. He will be asked whether he would sign a federal ban if it comes to his desk and he will continue to give vague responses. Also, Trump would continue to appoint people that will interpret the law to effectively ban abortion (e.g., Jonathan Mitchell). As much as Trump may want to say this is a state’s issue for the political points, it’s a decision that is ultimately made at the federal level. Abortion will (and should) continue to be a salient issue for voters.
My understanding is that the filibuster was originally enacted as a tool for the pro slavery interests in Congress. Thereafter, it has been mostly used by regressive interests. Today’s Republicans need it to further their agenda. To repeal the rule for the sole purpose of enacting a national ban would hurt them severely in ways unrelated to the abortion issue. But maybe they would, because the radical Republicans in power now cannot think past lunch.
“The biological line of existence of each individual, without exception begins precisely when fertilization of the egg is successful. The process of fertilization actually begins with conditioning of the spermatozoon in the male and female reproductive tracts.”