Roe v Wade overturned????? Draft says so

[Cdog923]

2 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

The tangled web of unintended consequences (or perhaps intended consequences).   Regardless, this decision will be debated and fought over for decades just like the original decision.   

 

This very reasoning is why I cannot comprehend why strict interpretations of the Constitution exist. It was meant to evolve with the country and be adapted to any time period. 

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Cdog923 said:

 

This very reasoning is why I cannot comprehend why strict interpretations of the Constitution exist. It was meant to evolve with the country and be adapted to any time period. 

Agree.  And, why we have so many amendments to it.  People who are so strict constitutionally that they believe nothing should ever change is just not living in historical reality.

[TGHusker]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Asking to help my knowledge on the subject….

 

I take the opinion as it’s not making abortion illegal, but throwing the decision back to each individual state to decide, or I think Congress could implement abortion legislation nationwide by passing a bill through both sides and getting a Presidential signature?   Am I on the correct thinking track here?

But I think it would end back before the SC who may again argue that constitutionally - this is a state issue to decide.   I think a constitutional amendment, making the 'right' an actual part of the constitution, is the only way to flip this decision nation wide.   Until then, state legislation races will become the hot bed of political action.  

[BigRedBuster]

The one thing I will say that probably should stay the same though, the constitution is put in place to limit the government....not to limit the people.  So, a constitutional amendment banning abortions would not be appropriate.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

But I think it would end back before the SC who may again argue that constitutionally - this is a state issue to decide.   I think a constitutional amendment, making the 'right' an actual part of the constitution, is the only way to flip this decision nation wide.   Until then, state legislation races will become the hot bed of political action.  

Which, even as someone who is pro life, this is just going to become a s#!t show.  For a long time, I've been disgusted with campaigns where this issue is THE priority.  So....people vote for a candidate based on their abortion beliefs and don't pay attention to other issues that affect way more people.

[TGHusker]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Agree.  And, why we have so many amendments to it.  People who are so strict constitutionally that they believe nothing should ever change is just not living in historical reality.

 

3 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

This very reasoning is why I cannot comprehend why strict interpretations of the Constitution exist. It was meant to evolve with the country and be adapted to any time period. 

 

Yes, amendments are a true sign that the constitution is a 'living' document vs a static document.  However, the 10th amendment is pretty clear as well.  So, that is why I think that an amendment would be needed  (or a new SC of liberal justices) to overturn this decision.  

 

Quote: 

The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights does not change the fundamental character of the national government.

 

 

[TGHusker]

35 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Which, even as someone who is pro life, this is just going to become a s#!t show.  For a long time, I've been disgusted with campaigns where this issue is THE priority.  So....people vote for a candidate based on their abortion beliefs and don't pay attention to other issues that affect way more people.

Yep, I counted myself in that crowd for too long.  Of course up to recent years, those pro-life conservative candidates also had other policy positions I agreed wt.  But not wt the trumpian/qanon ways of the current GOP there are fewer reasons to vote wt the GOP.  Not all of the battles can be won with a single election, so it is wrong in my opinion to vote for a person based on one issue alone.  Save that issue for another hill to fight on later and vote for the best candidate who can do the most good. 

38 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The one thing I will say that probably should stay the same though, the constitution is put in place to limit the government....not to limit the people.  So, a constitutional amendment banning abortions would not be appropriate.

well stated

[BigRedBuster]

 

[BigRedBuster]

Interesting thread with statistics.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

@TGHusker  This US map is interesting when thinking about how now it's going to be up to the states and how state legislature races are going to be so important.

 

So....if no state is above 41% for a total abortion ban, and Republican politicians are going to keep campaigning heavily as a pro-life candidate that is going to ban abortions, it's possible that we are going to see a swing to Democrats at the state level.  How many pro-choice people were voting for staunch pro-life candidates because they never thought it would be over turned at the SCOTUS level.

 

 

[DevoHusker]

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[DevoHusker]

 

 

 

[Scarlet]

 

[BigRedBuster]

Interesting long thread.