A national abortion ban: what logistically has to happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the USSC said it was a state matter, does the GOP have to get an amendment passed/ratified to institute a ban, or is it a simple lw with 51% majority?
Since the USSC said abortion was a state matter, can Feds try to supercede that?

I am long past the childbearing age and my daughter decided long ago that she does not want children
Nevertheless, I have a special bank account with the money to fly to Canada and to pay for an abortion in the event she does get pregnant and wants an abortion. No woman should be forced to have a baby she doesn't want. I will add that I have no interest in the weeping and wailing of those of you who weep over a few cells. Mind you bodies and leave the rest of us alone!

As trump does not need to worry about being reelected (assuming he doesn't declare himself president for life) he won't need to pander to the religious right and a national ban on abortion will not be important to his agenda.

Why not just make sure that she has access to birth control

Birth control can fail. Or are you suggesting PP’s daughter get her tubes tied

How does birth control fail?

WTF! Are people truly this stupid?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Told you all so

This is huge, huge news and neither the Washington Post nor NYT seems to be covering this. What is going on that this isn’t front page news?

One more step towards Project 2025 with more danger for women.

There’s a reason the nation’s most conservative circuit court dropped this at 5 pm on a Friday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line, if the House and Senate pass a national abortion ban bill, Trump will sign it. It could happen as early as the end of January.

Trump wouldn’t sign it but even if he did, scotus would over rule it. Abortion is a state not inter-state/federal issue.

Can you explain to me, honestly, why you believe Trump and the GOP? What is it that inspires this blind loyalty in the face of what his advisors have literally said they intend to do, just because a man who lies like he breates told you it's not the plan?

There really only are 2 options. Either you all are woefully uninformed or unable to connect the dots on these issues OR you're despicable immoral people who know exactly what they voted for. You guys lose it when people correctly label support for these policies as racist, misogynist, and bigoted, but you also lose it when people assume you must be stupid. I just can't figure out. Are you stupid or evil?

Written by someone with no critical thinking abilities and zero understanding of politics and incentives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Told you all so

This is huge, huge news and neither the Washington Post nor NYT seems to be covering this. What is going on that this isn’t front page news?

One more step towards Project 2025 with more danger for women.

The Post was on it a couple hours after the decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Told you all so

This is huge, huge news and neither the Washington Post nor NYT seems to be covering this. What is going on that this isn’t front page news?

One more step towards Project 2025 with more danger for women.

NYT here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Told you all so

This is huge, huge news and neither the Washington Post nor NYT seems to be covering this. What is going on that this isn’t front page news?

One more step towards Project 2025 with more danger for women.

NYT here

But wait. Didn’t SCOTUS hold in the birthright citizenship case that lower court rulings are no longer applicable to the entire republic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Told you all so

This is huge, huge news and neither the Washington Post nor NYT seems to be covering this. What is going on that this isn’t front page news?

One more step towards Project 2025 with more danger for women.

NYT here

But wait. Didn’t SCOTUS hold in the birthright citizenship case that lower court rulings are no longer applicable to the entire republic?

I think that was only for district judges, this is an appellate court. Not sure though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the USSC said it was a state matter, does the GOP have to get an amendment passed/ratified to institute a ban, or is it a simple lw with 51% majority?
Since the USSC said abortion was a state matter, can Feds try to supercede that?

I am long past the childbearing age and my daughter decided long ago that she does not want children
Nevertheless, I have a special bank account with the money to fly to Canada and to pay for an abortion in the event she does get pregnant and wants an abortion. No woman should be forced to have a baby she doesn't want. I will add that I have no interest in the weeping and wailing of those of you who weep over a few cells. Mind you bodies and leave the rest of us alone!

As trump does not need to worry about being reelected (assuming he doesn't declare himself president for life) he won't need to pander to the religious right and a national ban on abortion will not be important to his agenda.

Why not just make sure that she has access to birth control

Birth control can fail. Or are you suggesting PP’s daughter get her tubes tied

How does birth control fail?

WTF! Are people truly this stupid?!

Apparently so.

If you get sick while on a bc pill, the pillow less effective. If you take antibiotics while on a bc pill, the pill is less effective.

If a condom slips or is not put on right, it's less effective. If you don't get your sperm count tested to make sure that vasectomy worked, it could be less effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Told you all so

This is huge, huge news and neither the Washington Post nor NYT seems to be covering this. What is going on that this isn’t front page news?

One more step towards Project 2025 with more danger for women.

NYT here

So now nation wide injunctions are ok again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Told you all so

This is huge, huge news and neither the Washington Post nor NYT seems to be covering this. What is going on that this isn’t front page news?

One more step towards Project 2025 with more danger for women.

NYT here

But wait. Didn’t SCOTUS hold in the birthright citizenship case that lower court rulings are no longer applicable to the entire republic?

I think that was only for district judges, this is an appellate court. Not sure though.

It was not.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

A nice surprise for once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A nice surprise for once.

It’s only a temporary stay pending full hearing on merits. Don’t get too excited yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Told you all so

This is huge, huge news and neither the Washington Post nor NYT seems to be covering this. What is going on that this isn’t front page news?

One more step towards Project 2025 with more danger for women.

NYT here

So now nation wide injunctions are ok again?

+1
Bears repeating. This is no way to run a country.