Michigan AG says she wouldn't enforce "draconian" 1931 abortion ban [then get the hell out of office!]

Axios ^ | May 8, 2022 | Ivana Saric

[fwdude]

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel wouldn't enforce an "incredibly draconian and strict" abortion law that would take effect in the state if Roe v. Wade is repealed, she told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

(snip)

"As attorney general, I have statewide jurisdiction. And I ran on a platform of understanding that likely during the course of my term, Roe v. Wade would be overturned," Nessel said.

[fwdude]

Then this bloodthirsty witch needs to be impeached a.s.a.p.

[Blue Highway]

Get her out of office. STAT!!

[odawg]

Okay, then if she has the right to disobey laws she doesn’t like, then Trump supporters have that same right.

Aren’t we as a nation headed to a sweet place?

[lee martell]

Nessel was just fine with enforcing the ‘draconian & strict’ Mask guidelines back in 2020. She was frantic when then President Trump used a Mask if and when he chose to.
In fact, Atty. Gen. Nessel ‘banned him’ from visiting ‘her’ state if he didn’t want to wear a Mask every moment while in public. The Donald seemed to have impish fun baiting her hysterical and rude remarks.

[amnestynone]

In most states prosecutions are handled by district attorney and not the Attorney General whose main duties are to give advice to the state and handles other miscellaneous duties given to them. I see under the Michigan constitution that the Attorney General of that state only assists in prosecutions. Here is the list of duties of that officer in this state.www.michigan.gov/ag/attorney-general-duties I don't see how she is going to prosecute or not prosecute anyone accused of abortion.

[HamiltonJay]

Yep should be impeached but it won’t happen

[Vaquero]

The feds would have to enforce it.

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

I guess that oath of office was just for show.

[PubliusMM]

Why have we, the People, allowed these elected scumbags to pick and choose the laws they will and will not enforce? Don’t they take an oath of office? Does it not mean spit?

I’m sick of this crap. Time for the People to take back their government...local, state, and federal.

[fwdude]

I could see Nessel “taking over” any local prosecution of an abortion case, though. Why wouldn’t she? What does she have to lose, considering the statements she has already made with impunity?

[alternatives?]

“I guess that oath of office was just for show.”

I doubt God will agree.

[Drew68]

The feds would have to enforce it.

How would the feds enforce a Michigan state law?

[fwdude]

The feds would have to enforce it.

Uh, no. That's what repealing Roe would prevent, the meddling of the federal government in state disputes on the matter of abortion. It would have to be handled within Michigan.

[Pete Dovgan]

It’s a bad law, especially when you consider incest and rape. Think about if you were in that position. Still, it’s the law, and should be enforced or she should resign. You can’t pick and choose what laws you like.

[gibsonguy]

She hid the fact she was a radical lesbian during the election. The first thing she did was lean on Catholic adoption agencies.

[Vaquero]

Isn’t there a federal abortion mandate?

[Secret Agent Man]

Begin impeachement and removal procedure now.

Shes just disqualified herself from office.

[sauropod]

Thos isn’t the only thing she’s done.

[kempster]

She hasn’t bothered to push the legislature to update the Dog Law of 1919 that shelters and rescues are forced to live with. This whole state needs a overhaul.

[hanamizu]

Then this bloodthirsty witch needs to be impeached a.s.a.p.

---

Yes, but it all depends on which party is doing this sort of thing. California voters passed a law and later a Constitutional Amendment saying that marriage was between a man and woman. When it was challenged, the Governor and Atty. General refused to defend the state law. It’s how they roll. Were they punished? Of course not.

I think something similar happened during the Obama administration. The Attorney General refused to defend a law passed by Congress that he happened to disagree with.