Even if we pretend this shit matters and Democrats would actually pass a Roe-codifying bill in Congress, wouldn't it just be struck down by SCOTUS as unconstitutional, based on the precedent set by this case overturning Roe? Wouldn't we need a Constitutional amendment?
It we get down to the ruling RvW is technically about a woman's right to privacy in how her health care is given. Not having to explain yourself when getting a procedure. Then leaving it up to states makes it even more flimsy.
Theoretically, Biden could executive order clinics to be made and have them under the control of the federal government. As it stands right now, the state-by-state basis is one of the biggest problems and lets Democrats off the hook.
"If they want abortion rights in Texas then they should vote for Democrats there." Instead of doing anything meaningful with the power they have.
What's really fucked up is that a lot of these new bills are fucking with federal laws anyway. Like punishing people who get abortions by leaving states where it's illegal. You shouldn't be punished for breaking the law when you're not even in the state where it's illegal.
But apparently it's fine to arrest people for "Conspiracy To X" which they would commit retroactively in their home state. So if some chud stronghold passes a law that makes conspiracy to gamble a crime, then if you gamble in another state you've technically conspired to do so at some other time.
I think the ruling says the constitution doesn’t guarantee a right to abortion thus overturning roe v wade. So states are free to ban or allow abortion. I just don’t know if doing so at the federal level would infringe upon “states power” but I think supremacy clause would make that a non-issue
I mean if Biden really wanted to, he could make clinics on federal property or just outside of states where it's illegal and provide an inexpensive bus line to those clinics. But that would mean doing something more than pretending to be sad.
Unironically, yes. If they could do vaccines and testing through the federal government, why not abortion access?
I mean it's obvious why, but health care is health care.
I mean if Qanon folks are gonna conspiracy theory anyway about what the left is doing with fetuses, we might as well extend services and protections to people who need it.
A presidential candidate should've campaigned on that.
Free and anonymous mailing for tests, medication, etc would lift so many people out of poverty and allow them safety in their sexuality.
I still can't fathom why PrEP isn't done like that. The medication is cheaper than providing emergency healthcare for people who contact HIV. Doesn't even have to be LGBT either. How many paramedics, nurses, and people who run safe injection sites would have peace of mind?
Thinking about it more I don't think this new precedent would be able to strike down a hypothetical Roe-like federal law, but I believe it would nonetheless be brought down by SCOTUS under the justification of violating the Necessary and Proper Clause
Not on that premise, but yes they could strike down a federal law protecting abortion access. They don't actually need much of a pretext, the majority decision is often built on blatant lies gussied up with diverting legalese.
An example to look at is the Shelby case, as that's where they dismantled much of the VRA of 1965, a federal law protecting the right to vote "free" from racial discrimination. Their flimsy pretext: well the stuff that was happening in 1965 isn't happening anymore, so we don't need the law, so federalism dictates we let states "regulate" themselves. Racial discrimination in redistricting is still very much a thing, but even if the electoral system wasn't racist, that would also be proof that the law is functioning as intended and completely necessary. The majority understood this. It was presented to them for weeks, smacked in the face with it. They kept their cynical pretext so that their party (GOP) could have more power.
A similar thing could happen with abortion. But that's not a reason to do nothing, which is exactly what Democrats want: "we can't do anything until you vote for us again". An actually militant party would be having that fight and using it to undermine the legitimacy of the supreme court, would be packing the court with the pretext that it's obviously a political outfit, etc. Democrats are not that party, they're libs that bank on failure and helping out their capitalist buds.
Even if we pretend this shit matters and Democrats would actually pass a Roe-codifying bill in Congress, wouldn't it just be struck down by SCOTUS as unconstitutional, based on the precedent set by this case overturning Roe? Wouldn't we need a Constitutional amendment?
It we get down to the ruling RvW is technically about a woman's right to privacy in how her health care is given. Not having to explain yourself when getting a procedure. Then leaving it up to states makes it even more flimsy.
Theoretically, Biden could executive order clinics to be made and have them under the control of the federal government. As it stands right now, the state-by-state basis is one of the biggest problems and lets Democrats off the hook.
"If they want abortion rights in Texas then they should vote for Democrats there." Instead of doing anything meaningful with the power they have.
What's really fucked up is that a lot of these new bills are fucking with federal laws anyway. Like punishing people who get abortions by leaving states where it's illegal. You shouldn't be punished for breaking the law when you're not even in the state where it's illegal.
Just to reiterate - it would be buck wild if you got arrested for gambling in Vegas when it's illegal to do so in your home state.
But apparently it's fine to arrest people for "Conspiracy To X" which they would commit retroactively in their home state. So if some chud stronghold passes a law that makes conspiracy to gamble a crime, then if you gamble in another state you've technically conspired to do so at some other time.
State rights matter only insofar as being able to inflict draconian punishments.
I think the ruling says the constitution doesn’t guarantee a right to abortion thus overturning roe v wade. So states are free to ban or allow abortion. I just don’t know if doing so at the federal level would infringe upon “states power” but I think supremacy clause would make that a non-issue
I mean if Biden really wanted to, he could make clinics on federal property or just outside of states where it's illegal and provide an inexpensive bus line to those clinics. But that would mean doing something more than pretending to be sad.
Postal abortion clinics
Unironically, yes. If they could do vaccines and testing through the federal government, why not abortion access?
I mean it's obvious why, but health care is health care.
I mean if Qanon folks are gonna conspiracy theory anyway about what the left is doing with fetuses, we might as well extend services and protections to people who need it.
Absolutely.
The USPS has such a massive footprint across the entire country and they were already floating postal banking.
Even something as simple as birth control/plan b free in the mail would change so many lives.
Omg this is a solid plan
A presidential candidate should've campaigned on that.
Free and anonymous mailing for tests, medication, etc would lift so many people out of poverty and allow them safety in their sexuality.
I still can't fathom why PrEP isn't done like that. The medication is cheaper than providing emergency healthcare for people who contact HIV. Doesn't even have to be LGBT either. How many paramedics, nurses, and people who run safe injection sites would have peace of mind?
Thinking about it more I don't think this new precedent would be able to strike down a hypothetical Roe-like federal law, but I believe it would nonetheless be brought down by SCOTUS under the justification of violating the Necessary and Proper Clause
Yeah I own a mini constitution. That’s why all drugs should be legal because the tyranny of the Controlled Substance Act is illegal
Not on that premise, but yes they could strike down a federal law protecting abortion access. They don't actually need much of a pretext, the majority decision is often built on blatant lies gussied up with diverting legalese.
An example to look at is the Shelby case, as that's where they dismantled much of the VRA of 1965, a federal law protecting the right to vote "free" from racial discrimination. Their flimsy pretext: well the stuff that was happening in 1965 isn't happening anymore, so we don't need the law, so federalism dictates we let states "regulate" themselves. Racial discrimination in redistricting is still very much a thing, but even if the electoral system wasn't racist, that would also be proof that the law is functioning as intended and completely necessary. The majority understood this. It was presented to them for weeks, smacked in the face with it. They kept their cynical pretext so that their party (GOP) could have more power.
A similar thing could happen with abortion. But that's not a reason to do nothing, which is exactly what Democrats want: "we can't do anything until you vote for us again". An actually militant party would be having that fight and using it to undermine the legitimacy of the supreme court, would be packing the court with the pretext that it's obviously a political outfit, etc. Democrats are not that party, they're libs that bank on failure and helping out their capitalist buds.