Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If SCOTUS has already sent it back to the States there's nothing Harris can do.
It's at the state level now.

For the millionth time That’s not what the SCOTUS decision was! It said that it is not up to the courts to make these decisions, but the people which means Congress needs to make the law. It was interpreted as “going to the states” ie. state legislatures, because US Congress is so dysfunctional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If SCOTUS has already sent it back to the States there's nothing Harris can do.
It's at the state level now.

For the millionth time That’s not what the SCOTUS decision was! It said that it is not up to the courts to make these decisions, but the people which means Congress needs to make the law. It was interpreted as “going to the states” ie. state legislatures, because US Congress is so dysfunctional.

Yes, SCOTUS said that it was not in the purview of the judicial branch of the government to set rules that governed. The judicial branch can only interpret laws that are written and there is no law written that restricts the decision of states to allow or disallow abortion. So, abortion restrictions or freedom needs to be legislated through Congress and signed into law by the President. By the system of checks and balances, the judiciary has no power to control the actions and Roe v Wade was not correctly ruled based on this. Not based on the merits. Not based on the whether it was federal vs state, but based on the action being outside of judicial purview.

The SCOTUS ruled that for the federal government to implement the control that it did, it would require legislators in both houses of Congress to draft such a bill or a Constitutional change and submit it to the President to sign into law. That without such action, the decision on whether to allow or restrict aboritons rested at the state level. SCOTUS did not rule on the abortion at all, only on who had the power to control/restrict/allow such actions and that Roe v Wade was unlawful because the SCOTUS did not have this power.

If we want to have a federal restriction, it has to go through Congress first and then the President.

[Anonymous]

This decision belongs to each woman and is a private decision. We don't need any price of paper to know this. No state or government should be involved in this decision.

Roe had it right and so does Tim Walz. Mind your own damn business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If SCOTUS has already sent it back to the States there's nothing Harris can do.
It's at the state level now.

There’s nothing we can do! No new laws can be made! The Roberts court will live forever! All is lost! All is lost!!… so you pro choice people who think women are humans should just better quit trying because if we Republicans get back in power, Project 2025 will let us do whatever we want.

Coming from the same people who were pushing “don’t worry about abortion, it’s settled law” four years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Colorado's ballot measure is about health insurance not allowing abortion in and of itself (though it brings up important points), afaik.
We're not going back here.

[Anonymous]

I would love to hear from all the traditional conservatives and libertarians about why the depiction of a post Project2025 life in the above video is acceptable in the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I would love to hear from all the traditional conservatives and libertarians about why the depiction of a post Project2025 life in the above video is acceptable in the United States.

crickets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If SCOTUS has already sent it back to the States there's nothing Harris can do.
It's at the state level now.

For the millionth time That’s not what the SCOTUS decision was! It said that it is not up to the courts to make these decisions, but the people which means Congress needs to make the law. It was interpreted as “going to the states” ie. state legislatures, because US Congress is so dysfunctional.

It was also interpreted thusly because the GOP likes their winks and nods to the confederacy. Some people get some rights in some states and they don’t get any at all in others.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Dang

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If SCOTUS has already sent it back to the States there's nothing Harris can do.
It's at the state level now.

For the millionth time That’s not what the SCOTUS decision was! It said that it is not up to the courts to make these decisions, but the people which means Congress needs to make the law. It was interpreted as “going to the states” ie. state legislatures, because US Congress is so dysfunctional.

It was also interpreted thusly because the GOP likes their winks and nods to the confederacy. Some people get some rights in some states and they don’t get any at all in others.

This.

States rights over human rights.

We fought a war about this. Let’s not do it again. Pack the court, restore the constitutional rights this crooked court read out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I would love to hear from all the traditional conservatives and libertarians about why the depiction of a post Project2025 life in the above video is acceptable in the United States.

It’s complete fiction.

Trump has repeatedly disavowed P2025.

You are following a ridiculous conspiracy theory with your weird 2025 obsession; you remind me of the weird Q-anon followers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would love to hear from all the traditional conservatives and libertarians about why the depiction of a post Project2025 life in the above video is acceptable in the United States.

It’s complete fiction.

Trump has repeatedly disavowed P2025.

You are following a ridiculous conspiracy theory with your weird 2025 obsession

Pssst… everyone involved in Project 2025 was involved in Trump’s campaign, transition, or administration. Trump’s current VP pick wrote the forward to the book by Project 2025’s principal author. Trump is on video praising this plan and its authors. Trump is now lying that he has nothing to do with it, because it’s unpopular. Just like now he’s lying and saying he’ll be great for reproductive rights, because reproductive rights are popular.

[Anonymous]

This state calls itself the ‘most pro-life.’ But moms there keep dying.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/08/27/arkansas-maternal-mortality-rate-abortion-ban/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3ed776b%2F66cdf9aa13573876a761e8f7%2F596bc2b7ae7e8a44e7dcaab7%2F10%2F54%2F66cdf9aa13573876a761e8f7

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would love to hear from all the traditional conservatives and libertarians about why the depiction of a post Project2025 life in the above video is acceptable in the United States.

It’s complete fiction.

Trump has repeatedly disavowed P2025.

You are following a ridiculous conspiracy theory with your weird 2025 obsession; you remind me of the weird Q-anon followers.

Trump has repeatedly changed his position on many topics depending on his audience. He has even held contradictory stances on issues over the course of a few weeks. There is no integrity or assurance that what he says today is what he will say or mean tomorrow or next week.

What is known is that P2025 has been authored by a number of insiders in the Trump White House including people that are still in his inner circle and likely to be drafted to be part of his staff should he be elected. And while he doesn't know about P2025, he also is declining rapidly and it is quite likely that many of the policies that will come out of a Trump White House will be drafted and perhaps even submitted from his staff, rather than from the figurehead. So, while he disavows Project 2025, many of those policies will very likely come out of his administration. We know that during his four year tenure in office, there were many policies that he platformed that never came out and many issues that his supporters wanted that he did not support (like abortion, at the time) during the elections, but that he later leaned into while in office.

So, from his patterns over the last 8 years, although he denies knowledge of Project 2025, he is quite likely going to staff his office with the authors of the document who are very likely to be in a position to draft many of those initiatives and work on his behalf with Republicans in Congress to push those agenda items and Trump is unlikely to be in control or dictating those terms.