Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP who just can’t keep it straight.

Roe balanced the rights of women against the interests in protecting the unborn. Dobbs stripped women of their rights so the court would not have to engage in any balancing.

Codifying Roe, doesn’t give women their rights back. It just puts their lives up for a vote. Unacceptable.

That's what I have been saying. Roe, as a law, would make much sense and be in the books forever.

But it wasn't a law. It was some Justices lesgislating from the bench, which is no proper mechanism in our system, and the reason it eventually was repelled.

You lack fundamental understanding of constitutional rights. I’ve explained as much as I can. Law passed by a legislature cannot infringe upon your rights as guaranteed—GUARANTEED—by the Constitution. Red states will seek to invalidate any federal laws enshrining abortion access. They will win because the Courts that will hear those cases are captured. And then they’ll win at SCOTUS. And most women alive will still have fewer rights than they were born with.

No, the real problem here is that you believe one too many conspiracy theories and believe you live in something like North Korea.

Nope, we live in the USA, the Constitution is alive and well ... and Congress should do its job. Again, LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP who just can’t keep it straight.

Roe balanced the rights of women against the interests in protecting the unborn. Dobbs stripped women of their rights so the court would not have to engage in any balancing.

Codifying Roe, doesn’t give women their rights back. It just puts their lives up for a vote. Unacceptable.

That's what I have been saying. Roe, as a law, would make much sense and be in the books forever.

But it wasn't a law. It was some Justices lesgislating from the bench, which is no proper mechanism in our system, and the reason it eventually was repelled.

No it was repelled because Republicans view pregnant women’s bodies as chattel. We see you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP who just can’t keep it straight.

Roe balanced the rights of women against the interests in protecting the unborn. Dobbs stripped women of their rights so the court would not have to engage in any balancing.

Codifying Roe, doesn’t give women their rights back. It just puts their lives up for a vote. Unacceptable.

That's what I have been saying. Roe, as a law, would make much sense and be in the books forever.

But it wasn't a law. It was some Justices lesgislating from the bench, which is no proper mechanism in our system, and the reason it eventually was repelled.

You lack fundamental understanding of constitutional rights. I’ve explained as much as I can. Law passed by a legislature cannot infringe upon your rights as guaranteed—GUARANTEED—by the Constitution. Red states will seek to invalidate any federal laws enshrining abortion access. They will win because the Courts that will hear those cases are captured. And then they’ll win at SCOTUS. And most women alive will still have fewer rights than they were born with.

Anonymous wrote:To the PP who just can’t keep it straight.

Roe balanced the rights of women against the interests in protecting the unborn. Dobbs stripped women of their rights so the court would not have to engage in any balancing.

Codifying Roe, doesn’t give women their rights back. It just puts their lives up for a vote. Unacceptable.

That's what I have been saying. Roe, as a law, would make much sense and be in the books forever.

But it wasn't a law. It was some Justices lesgislating from the bench, which is no proper mechanism in our system, and the reason it eventually was repelled.

To the PP who just can’t keep it straight.

Roe balanced the rights of women against the interests in protecting the unborn. Dobbs stripped women of their rights so the court would not have to engage in any balancing.

Codifying Roe, doesn’t give women their rights back. It just puts their lives up for a vote. Unacceptable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

What it will do is give moderates and excuse to wash their hands of the sin of stripping women of their human rights. We will never get our rights back.

What a bunch of nonsense.

Everyone, abortion is a very difficult topic for obvious reasons and that's why EVERY COUNTRY HAS PASSED A LAW REGULATING IT.

The "my body my choice" is not a human right, it's an ignorant mantra that some people believe as religious dogma.

Or, what choice does the fetus have? Because there's a body there, right?

Thank you for proving my point. Women have no rights to their bodies and you’d like to keep it that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

What it will do is give moderates and excuse to wash their hands of the sin of stripping women of their human rights. We will never get our rights back.

What a bunch of nonsense.

Everyone, abortion is a very difficult topic for obvious reasons and that's why EVERY COUNTRY HAS PASSED A LAW REGULATING IT.

The "my body my choice" is not a human right, it's an ignorant mantra that some people believe as religious dogma.

Or, what choice does the fetus have? Because there's a body there, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

What it will do is give moderates and excuse to wash their hands of the sin of stripping women of their human rights. We will never get our rights back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

Anonymous wrote:The court took away a constitutionally protected right.
Said we do not have that right.
And made it possible for a federal ban.

Yeah. And short of that, republicans will gladly let states imprison pregnant women until they give birth. It is already happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Exactly. The idea that legislation codifying Roe will be a win is ridiculous. You have to restore the SCOTUS and reverse Dobbs.

The court took away a constitutionally protected right.
Said we do not have that right.
And made it possible for a federal ban.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

The courts are BROKEN. What don’t you understand? You probably work for Susan Collins. Stare decisis is dead.

The way it works is TX brings a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the federal law because they can. A corrupt judge makes up some new law about why TX is right. The government appeals all the way up to SCOTUS (assuming DOJ is even being run by an executive who wants to appeal) and then boom, TX wins. This is how it works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If SCOTUS can overturn Roe with the worst reasoned opinion in US history, what makes anyone think they’ll uphold a law codifying it. People please (specifically Dems in the Senate) Wake up.

Everyone who supports the Dobbs decision has been lying and saying that all it did was leave abortion up to the states, but in the opinion states that it actually leaves abortion up to “the people and their representatives.“ It opened the door to a federal law, one way or the other.

That door has been open for over two hundred years, it's how laws are made.