Alternative facts. |
That's nonsense. I live in a state that put it on the ballot. All the R's did was fight for the motion not to go to the ballot. It's like they really didn't want people to vote so their voice was heard. And when that didn't work, they put out misleading ads making the issue about "parents rights" The last thing Rs want is people actually getting to vote about abortion. They know they will lose. https://apnews.com/article/abortion-2022-midterm-elections-michigan-constitutions-f1265f148547a88f1e69fb2ff154a190 https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/ohio-votes-abortion-rights-fall-misinformation-proposal-spreading-102881654 https://kansasreflector.com/2023/05/18/church-and-state-kansas-republicans-ignore-voters-and-pass-new-anti-abortion-laws/ Etc... |
Not really, Dobbs was a bad ruling. Even RBG knew it. There was never a constitutional right to abortion. 50 states now have the ability to find a reasonable solution as does the Congress and White House. The decision forces an outcome based on how Government in the US works. |
Yes, but the states are NOT putting it on the ballot! Only very few have. And that was the point! They won’t let the people in the states vote on it! |
That’s what I meant, I agree with you! |
DP. How so? The PP is correct. Roe v Wade wasn't "overturned" - it was sent to each state to decide. Get a grip and face ACTUAL facts. |
It was "settled law of the land" - it no longer is and now we have states policing whether women may travel out of state and they are declaring 11 year old girls who have been raped to be felons. Those are the ACTUAL sick facts this nation is now facing. Stop with your gaslighting. |
No, Roe was not “settled law of the land.” It was a legal precedent built upon a very shaky foundation and an exceptionally wide interpretation of the right to privacy. Many people on the Right effectively worked over 50 years to exploit Roe’s legal weakness while many people on the Left, like you presumably, blindly thought it could never be overturned. Others on the Left, like Ginsburg, believed putting a right to abortion under the equal protection clause created a stronger legal foundation. The bottom line is people on the Left will have to wait until the Supreme Court is more ideologically moderate or center-Left at some point in the future before Dobbs can be challenged. Hopefully, a future Court will do a better job to protect women than Blackmun did in 1973. |
The protection for all women in the US was overturned. The right for women to make reproductive choices for themselves shouldn’t vary based on the state they live in. It’s a basic human right. |
It was “settled as a precedent of the court." “It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," Kavanaugh said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times." During his confirmation hearing, Roberts repeatedly declined to comment on Roe beyond saying he believed it was "settled as a precedent of the court." For the court to overturn a prior decision, Roberts said he thought it was not sufficient to believe the case had been wrongly decided. The justices would have to consider other factors too, he said, "like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments." "I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," Gorsuch said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other." In the exchange, Gorsuch acknowledged that the Supreme Court had held that a fetus is not a person for the purposes of the 14th Amendment's due process clause, a legal underpinning of Roe v. Wade. "Do you accept that?" asked Durbin. "That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes," Gorsuch replied. |
100% BS. If the Rs have the votes in Congress they would absolutely further restrict/ban abortion at the federal level. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/house-republicans-use-new-majority-to-approve-anti-abortion-measures They are trying to downplay that now that elections are approaching. |
Youngkin position is he will sign anything the VA GOP brings to him. |
+1 I trust doctors and women to make the best decisions for women’s health care. Not religious extremists with limited understanding of reproductive care. Or biology in some cases. |
No, we need federal protection for women. |
No, they don’t believe women should receive reproductive health care from their doctor. They don’t think women should make decisions about their own body and life. They clearly DGAF about other women. We, the women who value other women, do see this very clearly. |