You are picking one part of the sentence and ignoring the rest - which clearly states: "...and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights." Meaning, states can VOTE to restrict or not restrict abortion, according to the will of the people - as they are currently doing. What about this do you not understand? |
After he bragged about overturning Roe v Wade?? |
Here is an annotated version of the plan which provides some context for many of the key points in the document. It's a fairly quick read for those that don't want to plod through the document itself.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/07/politics/republican-gop-platform-annotated-dg/ |
Um... are you aware what "overturning Roe v Wade" did? IT SENT THE DECISION BACK TO THE STATES. Dear god, educate yourself. |
This is a ridiculously partisan "annotation." I suggest everyone simply read the actual document itself. It's only 16 pages and isn't tainted by a silly, biased narrative. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-party-platform |
oh I am educated plenty. It was recognized as a federal constitutional right for 50 years. Why overturn it? And why did Trump brag he played a role in that?? Now he is changing his tune? Too late. |
Bragging about something he is trying to distance himself from? |
But he's not distancing himself. He bragged about returning the decision to the states and stated that he does not support a nationwide ban on abortion. |
So what if it's partisan? As if Fox, OAN, et al don't engage in a "silly, biased narrative" every minute of the day. Are any of the annotations untrue? If so, please give an example. |
A lot of Supreme Court decisions survived 50 years, but then were later overturned. If you're convinced it's truly a federal constitutional right, then push for an amendment to the Constitution. You won't get it if that right just deals with abortion. Focus on a federal constitutional right to privacy, which would then allow a future Supreme Court to revisit Dobbs. This isn't a far-fetched idea, as the EU has the GDPR and many states are recognizing privacy rights in state laws. |
Never a constitutional right, rather a Supreme Court decision built on shaky ground. RBG was aware of that shaky ground. Congress had 50 years to establish appropriate legislation they, did not. The current court made a decision consistent with the 10th amendment and returned the issue to the states. |
Names some specifics. Not general pablum. |
It’s a human right. A right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. Not something one state can ban while others don’t. Like slavery. |
He’s speaking from both sides of his mouth, his only genuine talent. FACT. |
What PP understands is the court packed by Rumpus made it legal for extremists in red states to infringe on the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness of pregnant women. |