Do liberals understand that the SCOTUS is not debating whether to ban abortion?

[pknopp]

...and it is, whats your point?

My argument is it is and RvW stands or it isn't and states can do as they please, pro or anti.

 

[AntonToo]

My argument is it is and RvW stands or it isn't and states can do as they please, pro or anti.

? No, states cannot do as they please if Federal authority over matter contradicts them.

IF RvW is overrulled Federal partial birth abortion law still stands.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Supremacy Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[pknopp]

? No, states cannot do as they please if Federal authority over matter contradicts them.

IF RvW is overrulled Federal partial birth abortion law still stands.

Several commentators said that the court had changed from having concern for a woman's health to having concern about the fetus. They also noted a paternalistic tone in the court's ruling.

An argument based upon the construction of RvW.

US Supreme Court approves ban on “partial birth abortion”

 

[AntonToo]

Several commentators said that the court had changed from having concern for a woman's health to having concern about the fetus. They also noted a paternalistic tone in the court's ruling.

An argument based upon the construction of RvW.

US Supreme Court approves ban on “partial birth abortion”

Nothing in your link is about RvW

Which "construction" is it based on and what makes you think that the SC court will over-rule that specific "construction"?

 

[pknopp]

Nothing in your link is about RvW

Which "construction" is it based on and what makes you think that the SC court will over-rule that specific "construction"?

I have never argued they will over rule anything.

 

[AntonToo]

I have never argued they will over rule anything.

...you have argued that IF RvW is over ruled then so is partial birth abortion law.

Are you pulling my leg?

 

[pknopp]

...you have argued that IF RvW is over ruled then so is partial birth abortion law.

Are you pulling my leg?

Yes I did. I did not argue that the court will actually do either. I'm not so sure they will.

 

[AntonToo]

Yes I did. I did not argue that the court will actually do either. I'm not so sure they will.

It's not a matter of WILL they, it's a matter of what happens IF they will.

I don't understand why we need to spend time clearifying that.

 

[pknopp]

It's not a matter of WILL they, it's a matter of what happens IF they will.

I don't understand why we need to spend time clearifying that.

Which is what I argued. What happens IF this or that happens.

 

[AntonToo]

Which is what I argued. What happens IF this or that happens.

Which brings back to me saying:

IF RvW is overturned, Federal abortion ban will still stand.

You say nuh-uh, but can't explain why you think that.

 

[pknopp]

Which brings back to me saying:

IF RvW is overturned, Federal abortion ban will still stand.

You say nuh-uh, but can't explain why you think that.

You want the Federal government out of the abortion laws except for where you support them being involved in the abortion laws.

 

[AntonToo]

You want the Federal government out of the abortion laws except for where you support them being involved in the abortion laws.

Nobody asked or cares what personally I want.

I'm just talking about the effects of RvW

 

[pknopp]

Nobody asked or cares what you want.

Of course not. I wouldn't claim it makes any difference. It's not about me.

 

[Independent thinker]

I swear, every time I talk to a liberal, I SMH at how misinformed they are - and how deceitful the liberal media is. Just yesterday I spoke to a liberal, and in addition to her usual moaning about Republicans (to me, knowing I am a Republican), she bemoaned the “fact” that “Trump’s Republican Supreme Court” (her words) may ban abortion. When I corrected her, she said that MSNBC made it sound as though all abortions would be banned.

Listen up: for any of you libtards getting your news through MSNBC, the SCOTUS is not debating a ban. It doesn’t even have that right, just as it didn’t have the fight to force states to make it legal. It is merely debating whether the decision in Roe v Wade was constitutional, and if not, THE DECISION GOES TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.

Yes, the left and the lefty media are quite good at convincing people that if RVW were overturned, it would mean that all abortions would be illegal everywhere.

 

[BlindBoo]

By allowing the so called heart beat bill to stand in Texas they don't have to debate it. They've effective done away with the viability precedent and the right for a woman to choose to take an unwanted bun out of her oven.

 

[Grumblenuts]

By allowing the so called heart beat bill to stand in Texas they don't have to debate it. They've effective done away with the viability precedent and the right for a woman to choose to take an unwanted bun out of her oven.

For now and "in Texas" only. Failed, struck down, blocked, or vetoed elsewhere and the federal version went nowhere fast. The SC will have to strike it down eventually.

 

[DGS49]

Given the "right" case, the USSC could declare that since the Constitution is silent on the status of unborn organisms, the States are free to legislate matters pertaining to ending pregnancy in whatever way they deem proper.

The issue of "partial-birth abortion" being forbidden at the Federal level would be rendered moot. The Feds have no Constitutional power to regulate.

 

[Coyote]

Sure, so then likewise, abortion should be up to the States, right?

Are saying then that gun ownership should be up to the states?

 

[Lisa558]

Are saying then that gun ownership should be up to the states?

Not comparable. The right to bear arms is delineated in the Constitution, thus it is at the federal level. There is nothing mentioned about the right to have an abortion in the Constitution, thus it is decided at the state level.