I hope you are right, but the other side despises federalism and is prone to one size fits all edicts. I think they will whip their minions into a frenzy over codifying abortion nationally.
My experience with that side is that they have a short attention span on real issues. Also, speaking as one who does favor leaving this matter to the woman's choice, I will observe that it is a morally expensive issue because the other side has the easy advantage of being able to claim to be against the killing of little babies, a position against which it is very difficult to argue. Given the past two years, any frenzy the Ds manage to whip up over the abortion issue will probably only redound to making them even more despised than they already are.
It’s interesting that the same people demanding “my body, my choice” were not so accommodating for those of us who felt the same about the state mandating the jab. And this decision does not ban choice @ all.
That's a good point. Those of us who oppose the mandates can still use the argument, regardless of where we stand on abortion. But the pro-abortionists who support the mandates have lost that argument.
Don't forget they have just come from supporting Ukrainian neo Nazis and a regime that shuts down opposition media, imprisons political rivals and has killed several thousand civilians over the last 8 years in eastern Ukraine so nothing they think or do is based on rational thinking.
That would be interesting. As noted by several justices (including Ginsberg), congress has had more than 50 years to do just that and has not. Someone else made the parallel with immigration: if there was in fact a desire to reform the law it would have at least been brought to the floor. What we've seen for 50 years is distractions, not actions.
I agree. It has been fifty years of very profitable distractions to let the issue languish a la immigration. However, Schumer, Warren, Sanders, and others are now very "angry", and appear to be pushing for a national solution.
I hope you are right, but the other side despises federalism and is prone to one size fits all edicts. I think they will whip their minions into a frenzy over codifying abortion nationally.
My experience with that side is that they have a short attention span on real issues. Also, speaking as one who does favor leaving this matter to the woman's choice, I will observe that it is a morally expensive issue because the other side has the easy advantage of being able to claim to be against the killing of little babies, a position against which it is very difficult to argue. Given the past two years, any frenzy the Ds manage to whip up over the abortion issue will probably only redound to making them even more despised than they already are.
It’s interesting that the same people demanding “my body, my choice” were not so accommodating for those of us who felt the same about the state mandating the jab. And this decision does not ban choice @ all.
Exactly! They threw away the "my body, my choice" argument when they supported the vaccine mandates.
I actually think you can still use that argument. What the Left forgets is that there are two bodies involved when it comes to pregnancy.
That's a good point. Those of us who oppose the mandates can still use the argument, regardless of where we stand on abortion. But the pro-abortionists who support the mandates have lost that argument.
You’d never know it, based on the ready-made signs outside the Supreme Court!
Actually, three bodies.
🤦♀️ You are correct!
Now back w/ a vengeance….
Entirely predictable to be fair.
Don't forget they have just come from supporting Ukrainian neo Nazis and a regime that shuts down opposition media, imprisons political rivals and has killed several thousand civilians over the last 8 years in eastern Ukraine so nothing they think or do is based on rational thinking.
That would be interesting. As noted by several justices (including Ginsberg), congress has had more than 50 years to do just that and has not. Someone else made the parallel with immigration: if there was in fact a desire to reform the law it would have at least been brought to the floor. What we've seen for 50 years is distractions, not actions.
I agree. It has been fifty years of very profitable distractions to let the issue languish a la immigration. However, Schumer, Warren, Sanders, and others are now very "angry", and appear to be pushing for a national solution.