Yeah its a "border bill"...

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

A court decision isn't law...had it been codified into law at a federal level then things more than likely been different...but false promises by the dems and unwillingness to do anything that'd hurt their polling ultimately led to the decision...

Even ginsberg thought roe was a poorly decided case and needed a fed law to strengthen abortion access...

There was still no need to go nuclear on RvW, especially given that overturning RvW opens all sorts of other fronts to go after other rights/freedoms.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

There was still no need to go nuclear on RvW, especially given that overturning RvW opens all sorts of other fronts to go after other rights/freedoms.

Roe wasn't decided on a solid case...so any "case law" was on shaky ground...it all comes back to not being codified into law with legislation

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Roe wasn't decided on a solid case...so any "case law" was on shaky ground...it all comes back to not being codified into law with legislation

RvW was fine for 50 years until a biased & activist court decided to overturn it. Tell me which is shakier RvW or overturning it, which according Justice Thomas opens up the possibility to overturn gay marriage and even outlaw ghey ***.

Nevertheless, I'm pro socialized medicine and striking RvW opens that door.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

RvW was fine for 50 years until a biased & activist court decided to overturn it.

Really then why did one of biggest proponents of abortions to sit on the court say she'd like to see it brought before her? It wasn't a solid legal argument in roe...which is why legislation was needed but never brought up

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I say if a woman can decide on her own to abort a pregnancy then a man should be able to give up any and all obligations to any child born without his consent.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

I say if a woman can decide on her own to abort a pregnancy then a man should be able to give up any and all obligations to any child born without his consent.

I think Australia passed something like that...or at least a bill was brought up for a vote

 

[Speed Chaser]

I say if a woman can decide on her own to abort a pregnancy then a man should be able to give up any and all obligations to any child born without his consent.

Agree

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Really then why did one of biggest proponents of abortions to sit on the court say she'd like to see it brought before her? It wasn't a solid legal argument in roe...which is why legislation was needed but never brought up

Ginsberg is biased. Given her background, of course she would have loved to codify abortion rights.

As I said the "right" thing for SCOTUS to do was find in favor of Dobbs v Jackson and say DvJ was consistent with RvW. Instead SCOTUS over reached and called into question ghey rights & the right to contraception when they struck RvW.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Instead SCOTUS over reached and called into question ghey rights & the right to contraception when they struck RvW.

Where did they over reach?

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Where did they over reach?

By striking RvW. The could have found on favor of Dobbs v Jackson without revisiting RvW since RvW only grants rights to abortion on a "sliding scale" with (potential) restrictions becoming more & more restrictive as the ***** matures.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

By striking RvW. The could have found on favor of Dobbs v Jackson without revisiting RvW since RvW only grants rights to abortion on a "sliding scale" with (potential) restrictions becoming more & more restrictive as the ***** matures.

Roe wasn't a good case to begin with...many experts including ginsberg agreed with that...

If actual legislation would've been passed then Dobbs wouldn't have happened...

Don't blame the court because representatives didn't their job in what 40 some years...

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Roe wasn't a good case to begin with...many experts including ginsberg agreed with that...

If actual legislation would've been passed then Dobbs wouldn't have happened...

Don't blame the court because representatives didn't their job in what 40 some years...

Closer to 50 years. RvW didn't look all that bad to the Justices who passed it. Keep in mind that vetsion of the USSC was 7-2 in favor of GOP appointees. RvW passed 7-2, with support from 5 republican appointees. So I'm little confused as to why RvW was such bad case law.

Once Reagan captured the southern democrat vote, not codifying abortion makes political sense for the DNC. The Dems did better than anticipated in the midterms because the conservative court was "stupid" enough to overturn RvW. IMHO if Bumbling Biden wins in 2024, it'll be in large part due the abortion issue.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Roe was framed as privacy protection case and the case wasn't a strong one in that regard...just because the ruled in favor doesn't change the strength of the case...

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Bumbling Biden wins in 2024, it'll be in large part due the abortion issue.

Anyone that votes for biden as a Roe savior is a fool...

He's had plenty of years to draft and propose legislation to preserve abortion...not once did he...