• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

Shooshmoo said:
Did he say that? Great to have you back!
Click to expand...

I wasn’t making any kind of sense last night. A couple bottles of wine on our last night in France.

I’m somewhere between WakeBake and Ph on this in the harsh light of day. Similar to the centrist backlash to Trump, this might be a bridge too far for some and have negative electoral repercussions. But it’s also a bellwether for just how much the party has captured of this nation, from lower courts to SCOTUS, from state houses eroding education to the national stage. I just don’t have any faith the Dems have a counter strategy lined up.
 
TownieDeac said:
I wasn’t making any kind of sense last night. A couple bottles of wine on our last night in France.

I’m somewhere between WakeBake and Ph on this in the harsh light of day. Similar to the centrist backlash to Trump, this might be a bridge too far for some and have negative electoral repercussions. But it’s also a bellwether for just how much the party has captured of this nation, from lower courts to SCOTUS, from state houses eroding education to the national stage. I just don’t have any faith the Dems have a counter strategy lined up.
Click to expand...

And you would be right.
 
awaken said:
Mid-terms just became a referendum on abortion.
Jan 6th won't matter. Gas prices won't matter.
The country has been thrown back 50 years, and each side is energized about it.

I'm curious to the fall-out. This is the bathroom bill x10. If NC lost some sporting events, then what will happen about this?
There are some California companies that just re-located to Texas. With their recent GOP platform, and now Roe being overturned, do they want to stay in Texas?
SCOTUS nominees lied to Congress. Committed fraud. Repercussions?

Justice Thomas says the Supreme Court should 'reconsider' rulings that protect access to contraception and same-sex marriage as the court overturns Roe v. Wade
^ The Leopards Ate My Face missing case from Thomas' list above is Loving v Virginia. Thomas appears to be alone in this sentiment for now, but there is a real reason for concern.
Click to expand...

They won’t relocate unless it’s financially in their best interests.

I really wish folks appreciate how objectively stupid many of the reps in state legislatures are. I think when some folks wax philosophically about states rights, they conjure some image of Patrick Henry eloquently debating ideas instead of morons like David Lewis.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
They won’t relocate unless it’s financially in their best interests.

I really wish folks appreciate how objectively stupid many of the reps in state legislatures are. I think when some folks wax philosophically about states rights, they conjure some image of Patrick Henry eloquently debating ideas instead of morons like David Lewis.
Click to expand...

David Lewis...Nice reference. He was the rep for the district where I grew up. He is certainly no scholar, but to be fair he does have a speech impediment.
 
#2 and #3 are really good ideas.

 
birdman said:
#2 and #3 are really good ideas.

Click to expand...

There is plenty of Federal land in each state, it’s not just National Parks.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
There is plenty of Federal land in each state, it’s not just National Parks.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I think it's a great idea. It would of course infuriate Trumpites and pro-lifers and likely increase their drive to pass federal laws eliminating abortion, but so be it. The issue, as always, is whether the Democratic leadership will have the guts to actually do something this bold. Based on prior experience the answer would have to be no. Instead Schumer, Pelosi, Biden, etc. will likely just continue to complain and criticize what is happening while pretending that working with the status quo will somehow yield significant solutions.
 
Democrats need to understand that the Executive branch is the enforcement mechanism for the Supreme Court. They don’t have to stand by this ruling.
 
PhDeac said:
Democrats need to understand that the Executive branch is the enforcement mechanism for the Supreme Court. They don’t have to stand by this ruling.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure how “enforcement” works in this regard, how does the President enforce a national right to abortion where there is none?
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I’m not sure how “enforcement” works in this regard, how does the President enforce a national right to abortion where there is none?
Click to expand...

It’s about not enforcing a ban through the methods we are discussing.

It’s about cutting off this radical Court and letting us know it has no legitimacy.
 
birdman said:
#2 and #3 are really good ideas.

Click to expand...

These are all really good ideas. Love the federal land idea.
 
birdman said:
#2 and #3 are really good ideas.

Click to expand...

Out west, go 10 yds off any highway and you hit a short fence with a FEDERAL LANDS NO TRESPASSING sign. Haven't noticed that so much in places back east like SC or FL though.
 
I read a criticism of that idea that conservative state medical boards would just revoke the medical licenses of the doctors performing abortions. People on national property are still subject to state laws unless the state has passed jurisdiction of that land to the Federal Government.

“Since February 1, 1940, the United States acquires no jurisdiction over federal lands in a state until the head or other authorized officer of the department or agency which has custody of the lands formally accepts the jurisdiction offered by state law.Jan 17, 2020”
 
I’m guessing that any abortion services offered on federal land would have to be controlled and regulated by the federal government somehow.
 
And the Federal government is currently prohibited from performing abortions except in the case of rape, incest, and mother’s life. I really don’t see any of those three ideas coming to fruition.
 
BiffTannen said:
And the Federal government is currently prohibited from performing abortions except in the case of rape, incest, and mother’s life. I really don’t see any of those three ideas coming to fruition.
Click to expand...

You just explained why it could. The Federal government can perform abortions in the case of rape, incest, and the mother’s life.
 
BiffTannen said:
And the Federal government is currently prohibited from performing abortions except in the case of rape, incest, and mother’s life. I really don’t see any of those three ideas coming to fruition.
Click to expand...

By law? By executive order? This seems fixable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top