He’s not going anywhere.
Think about it. He says Roe should be overturned. He will appoint the kind of justices that would do so.
We have a lot better chance of overturning Roe than passing a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.
Sometimes absolutionists need a swift kick in the ass from the foot of pragmatism.
Good for Fred. He has spoken like someone who actually read the Constitution. Fred is for small government and this is a step in that direction.
This remedy is just as acceptable as outlawing it. Overturning Roe v Wade puts it back to the states where it belongs as does 75% of the federal laws on the books.
Freudy Guiliompson?
or to appoint judges that overthrow RvW and return the issue to the states, where we may very well find many states that ban it outright.
So which is better, an attempt to ban it federally that fails, or at the state level where it is banned in some states. Now, women who want to abort could still go to a pro-abort state, but teens and young women who may be confused or mislead by the seriousness of the issue, may realize what is fully at stake is several states ban it outright. This, IMHO, would have the greatest effect in reducing abortions in this country.
sometimes our republicans running for president need a swift kick in the ass! If the pro life ammendment is good enough for the party, it should be acceptable to Fred. The 14th ammendment defends life in this country...human life, period. that is the federal government’s main duty, to uphold the right to life libery, and the pursuit of happiness. Those children in the womb know no unhappiness and are having a grand time swimming around in there. What’s going on here? Are we losing our clarity to see murder as murder? How long until we get a huge jackhammer on the head of our country unless we strongly move towards protecting the MOST innocent!
“Sometimes absolutionists need a swift kick in the ass from the foot of pragmatism.”
Well put!