Posted on 05/15/2023 6:27:40 AM PDT by lasereye
On CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Nikki Haley made the following remarks about a potential federal abortion law:
For a national standard, I think we have to tell the American people the truth. In order to do a national standard, you’d have to have a majority of the House, 60 Senate votes, and a president. We haven’t had 60 pro-life senators in 100 years. So the idea that a Republican president could ban all abortions is not being honest with the American people, any more than a Democrat president could ban these pro-life laws in the states.[…]
I’m not gonna lie to the American people. Nothing’s gonna happen if we don’t get 60 votes in the Senate. We’re not even close to that on the Republican or the Democrat side.
I think Haley is right that there’s no real chance Senate Republicans would abolish the filibuster, but 49 of the 51 Democrats in the Senate have endorsed scrapping the 60-vote threshold for legislation. That means that if they replace Senator Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona with progressive Democrat Ruben Gallego (and don’t lose any Senate races besides West Virginia), 50 Senate Democrats would abolish the filibuster and pass a radical abortion law—mandating legal abortion in all 50 states from viability to birth for reasons of mental or emotional health—if Democrats win the House and hold the White House.
Haley clearly wants to minimize the issue of a federal abortion limit for Republicans, but in doing so she is wrongly downplaying the obvious consequences of a Democratic trifecta for abortion and a wide array of issues.
I have not heard any of the declared or undeclared Republican 2024 candidates call for a national abortion ban. What is she talking about?
McCormack is right. She doesn't grasp the likelihood that they will ditch the filibuster some day soon under a Democrat President.
Message to whoever gets the 2024 nomination: Please don't pick Haley as your running mate.
Implying that she'd ban it if she had 60 votes is not terribly honest either.
Tricky Nicki
She happens to be right. The Repukes have talking points that they run on each year. Trump took a number of them away by actually doing what he said he would do. Now they need new talking points, they are struggling to find any so trying to nationalize the abortion debate is their strategy. Remember when all they wanted was to put it back to the states? By nationalizing it you can bet that all the progress in saving lives that has been made in the last year will go away soon because the Rats will win this argument and force it nationally. Then the Repukes can run elections for decades promising to roll back the law. They’ll always be a few votes short.
I take second place to no one on defending life. Yet I oppose a national ban for the same reason as Roe v Wade was unconstitutional: the national government doesn’t have jurisdiction over this issue; it is an issue under states’ police powers. Some here would disagree, but I hold that, if we are ever to return to constitutional adherence, on the way we have to adhere to the constitution
Also, here we see the old GOP trope that you have to control the presidency, both houses with 60 in the Senate “to get anything done.” Bull crap. Admittedly Biden does much of his damage by unconstitutional Exec orders, but what they did by statute, did they have 60 votes?
The abortion fight is just a drama point at this time. The SC sent it back to the states. The states will figure it out.
Abortion is just a fundraising tool now—for both sides.
The successful candidate will pivot to issues that matter to most people: Inflation, Jobs, and security.
Even crime is a local issue. The Fed’s are not going to impact the crime crap we see in cities.
Right on all counts. We hard core pro lifers need to also be true that our constitutional principles and leave this matter to the states.
They get rich running
I support President Trump but he is on a very thin thread Haley is unacceptable my wife was polled in 2008 about Hillary as VP by the Obama crew and he got her message.
Will Trump get mine?
That is a weird statement. When Roe was legislated by the Supreme court 50 years ago, the vast majority of Democrats were pro-life. In 1923, it was probably at least 99% of the public.
I agree with everything you said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.