To: ChicagoConservative27
The SC says that this ISN’T a federal issue. So a federal law wouldn’t be valid.
2 posted on
05/07/2022 5:44:16 PM PDT by
Blood of Tyrants
(Inside every liberal is a blood-thirsty fascist yearning to be free of current societal constraints.)
To: Blood of Tyrants
That’s how I see it. I really don’t see how anyone can think that legislation can be a replacement to Roe v Wade. It’s a state matter. Unless, of course, politicians don’t care and just think they can do whatever they want ...
5 posted on
05/07/2022 5:47:07 PM PDT by
ClearCase_guy
(It's hard to "Believe all women" when judges say "I don't know what a woman is".)
To: Blood of Tyrants
This is Mitch trying to flip one if the Judges
To: Blood of Tyrants
The SC says that this ISN’T a federal issue. No it didn't.
To: Blood of Tyrants
The SC says that this ISN’T a federal issue. So a federal law wouldn’t be valid. Agree. The Tenth Amendment cuts both ways. The federal government should not be able to enshrine a national abortion right or a national abortion ban.
Both sides of the argument will have to fight this out state by state.
My prediction is that a good number of states will ban abortion in most cases. A good number will have abortion on demand. A good number will have European-style restrictions at 10-15 weeks.
26 posted on
05/07/2022 6:23:12 PM PDT by
TontoKowalski
(You can call me "Dick.")
To: Blood of Tyrants
That’s not what the draft opinion says. It just says that it’s not a constitutional right.
To: Blood of Tyrants
Tenth Ammendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
So does this have any meaning anymore?
45 posted on
05/07/2022 7:53:35 PM PDT by
D Rider
( )
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson