patrick.net

Interesting take on it. So Democrats want to lose on an issue so that they have an issue to fight for.

The right place for abortion laws is at the state level, like the Constitution says. Anything not specifically in the Constitution is reserved to the states, right?

So even if RVW is overturned, some states would then have legal abortion, and people would just go there for their abortions. So it seems that that would reduce some of the Democrats' ability to get people fired up about it.

Patrick says

Interesting take on it. So Democrats want to lose on an issue so that they have an issue to fight for.

The right place for abortion laws is at the state level, like the Constitution says. Anything not specifically in the Constitution is reserved to the states, right?

So even if RVW is overturned, some states would then have legal abortion, and people would just go there for their abortions. So it seems that that would reduce some of the Democrats' ability to get people fired up about it.

I'm concerned overturning roe v Wade would set precedent for mandatory jabs/vaxx passport.

By overturning roe v Wade, there goes my body my choice.

joshuatrio says

Patrick says

Interesting take on it. So Democrats want to lose on an issue so that they have an issue to fight for.

The right place for abortion laws is at the state level, like the Constitution says. Anything not specifically in the Constitution is reserved to the states, right?

So even if RVW is overturned, some states would then have legal abortion, and people would just go there for their abortions. So it seems that that would reduce some of the Democrats' ability to get people fired up about it.

I'm concerned overturning roe v Wade would set precedent for mandatory jabs/vaxx passport.

By overturning roe v Wade, there goes my body my choice.

But this means that the lefty fucks would have to scream "violation of bodily autonomy" and "get vaxxed or lose your job" in the same breath! If they plan to base their 2022 and 2024 campaigns on "my body my choice" they can't push mandatory vaxx and if they plan to campaign on mandatory vaxxinations, they can't use abortion. =))

joshuatrio says

Patrick says

Interesting take on it. So Democrats want to lose on an issue so that they have an issue to fight for.

The right place for abortion laws is at the state level, like the Constitution says. Anything not specifically in the Constitution is reserved to the states, right?

So even if RVW is overturned, some states would then have legal abortion, and people would just go there for their abortions. So it seems that that would reduce some of the Democrats' ability to get people fired up about it.

I'm concerned overturning roe v Wade would set precedent for mandatory jabs/vaxx passport.

By overturning roe v Wade, there goes my body my choice.

It's not like they honor the "my body my choice" argument when it comes to the vaxx anyway

Patrick says

Interesting take on it. So Democrats want to lose on an issue so that they have an issue to fight for.

If Trump runs for election, I expect SCOTUS to pull the trigger before March. Just so the Left and RINOS can start working everyone up into a panic.
It will be the war drum to pack and stack the court, and a call to drag voters out of the woodwork, so the Democrats can keep and gain on Congress. Their promise will be to stack the court and right the wrong, of RvW being overturned. They will want to call it a new name anyway. Roe turned out to be an ungrateful bitch, and lobbied for its repeal. And again to campaign against Trump in 2024.

The Supreme Court case is about states rights. Remind everyone of this fact so the propagandists can’t fool us into believing that this is about abortion. Whether you agree with the law or not, the question is does a state have the authority to regulate and protect an innocent child? To me the answer is a clear yes, because if they don’t have the right to defend a child in the womb, they don’t have the right to defend any man, woman or child from exploitation or harm.

PeopleUnited says

, the question is does a state have the authority to regulate and protect

Period! Yes, and thanks to the last 10 to 15 years. We all now realize, why our State's politics is more important than anyone we send to Washington.
I think we need to redo how we think of Washington. Washington DC, needs to be thought of as a Common area for all 50 States.
Every State's laws should have Jurisdiction as it pertains to the representatives we send there. That would stop 80% of the lawlessness in our DOJ, and Judicial system.

You hurl a swear word at any of Jihad Squad and they send the DOJ spooks and goons out to dispatch you. But the Commie operatives, are free to assault GOP politicians, while every agency responsible for policing just looks the other way with a glib look on their face. I would like to see DeSantis create a State Marshall office, that has jurisdiction anywhere Florida interests are. Along with his Florida Army his creating. Someone assaults Matt Gaetz or try to blackmail them with bogus bullshit. Then the DOJ just smacks them on the wrist with a stern tongue wagging. The Florida Marshalls should be able to then step in and bring real serious charges.
Kentucky should have had special state Marshalls go to Washington and investigated and arrested the Soros operatives that assaulted him and his wife after Trump's SOTU address.

This way we would then be able to drag bad actors out of Washington jurisdiction where the courts never bring Commies to court. We can extradite them to Florida where Florida has been impugned.

Tenpoundbass says

If Trump runs for election, I expect SCOTUS to pull the trigger before March. Just so the Left and RINOS can start working everyone up into a panic.

Exactly, This will be topic which should rile up libruls and they would show up at polls to vote against TRUMP! Otherwise, they may stay home depressed and it will be difficult to stuff the ballot boxes.

https://notthebee.com/article/these-people-are-crazy-for-abortion-and-its-quite-strange?source=patrick.net