No they can't.
As I said before because of Federalism and enumerated powers, the Federal Government has absolutely no say in the matter, and that in large part why "Roe" was overturned.
The Congress can make a law regulating abortion and making it legal in all 50 states there-bye superceding all the state’s laws...just like they did with title 9 and other “civil rights” laws. The question is will they? I’m sure Dementia Joe will sign the bill! I’m not a fan of abortion but they can federalize the issue, heck if they could get the votes they could craft an amendment. The Supreme Court took itself out of the abortion moral wars is all they did and now they can sit back and just refuse to take anymore cases on the issue that comes their way.
You, et. al: As I said before because of Federalism and enumerated powers, the Federal Government has absolutely no say in the matter...
I'm using your quoted post, but I'm directing this at all of you who graciously responded in rebuttal.
The prediction I posed was that the states would pass a patchwork of laws, and that patchwork would drive a desire for Congress to pass a conformity law. The rebuttal was that there was no enumerated power for Congress to have a say in the matter.
I disagree, and I would like to hear rebuttals.
Article IV Section 1 says:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.The obvious question here regarding Thomas' comments about other rulings from "emanations from penumbras" (contraception, alternative marriage, etc.), is how do states that are more restrictive deal with that states that are less so?
If a state is Constitutionally required to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states, and those public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states are different across the states, then we could theoretically find ourselves in the situation where the most restrictive (or least restrictive) state will demand that their public acts, records, and judicial proceedings be the ones that must be given full faith and credit in all the other states.
That's where Congress has a Constitutional role, via Article IV Section 1, to step in an decide how the patchwork of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of all the states will be effected.
To do so, I'm saying that Congress will have to debate the various states' claims and desires, and come to a compromise bill that normalizes the effects across all the states.
Thoughts?
-PJ