How About a Federal Law Banning Third Trimester Abortions (with limited exceptions)?

[The Sage of Main Street]

People vote and live in States.

It's a Contradiction to Hate Politicians and Love the Constitution

Electing has nothing to do with voting. It's a forced choice of which pre-owned candidate will make all your political decisions for you.

 

[22lcidw]

answer is still the same. her body gestates & takes its physical burden alone. her emotional state is only hers as well. & financially is at least 50%... more so if there is no 2 parent household.

so all is not equal no matter how you slice it or dice it.

Our nation from around the mid to late 1960's expanded our sexual ways massively. This for a percentage of women is a behavior problem. And all citizens have a right to question it. There are many ways to not get pregnant. If this continues and we get poorer, the dictatorial state will end up sterilizing people. And still calling people free as now they can screw whenever they want. And will be allotted limited medications depending on costs for any sexual diseases.

 

[pknopp]

How About a Federal Law Banning Third Trimester Abortions (with limited exceptions)?​

How about following the SC's lead and leave this, and most everything else, up to the states?

To note. The Supreme Court did not state it was up to the states.

It simply ruled it was not a Constitutionally protected right.

They noted in their ruling that the Federal government was not barred from passing laws concerning abortion.

 

[jwoodie]

It's not a question of being "for or against" late term abortions.

So you refuse to answer?

 

[Care4all]

Then why are you calling States Democracies?

All have legislatures and executives, all have Constitutions. Some have referendum processes some do not.

They are representative Republics.

Stop it!

YOU SAID SPECIFICALLY,

PURE

Democracies.

And now you want to PRETEND you don't know what PURE Democracy means....no more games kiddo!

 

[martybegan]

Stop it!

YOU SAID SPECIFICALLY,

PURE

Democracies.

And now you want to PRETEND you don't know what PURE Democracy means....no more games kiddo!

No, you called them democracies, and that implies pure democracy.

Are States Constitutional Republics, yes or no?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Stop it!

YOU SAID SPECIFICALLY,

PURE

Democracies.

And now you want to PRETEND you don't know what PURE Democracy means....no more games kiddo!

If Someone Says, "My Way or the Highway," It Means That His Way Is the Low Way

You're acting like we have to put up with whichever way it is defined. So, if someone says it is a republic, he thinks we have to submit to that predatory opinion. Just like when they quote Franklin saying it is, the Constitution-bangers are really saying, "That settles that."

For example, just because I believe it is a republic, it doesn't follow that I believe we have to submit to the reality of what it is. Americans should not put up with this insulting elitist tyranny on the basis of a static and stagnant status quo.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Are States Constitutional Republics, yes or no?

So What If They Are? Existence Doesn't Imply the Right to Exist.

 

[playtime]

It has nothing to do with the physical, this is purely from a legal standpoint.

yes.

it.

does.

the female has an overwhelming investment in the decision compared to the male. would you rather the father financially pay for the health & well being of a baby born or society?

If women have a legal way to remove the responsibility of parenthood, why don't men have an equivalent?

already answered that 7 ways to sunday.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

While I agree that abortion is a medical issue that should be governed by State Medical Boards, I wonder if a federal law might become necessary to at least narrow the scope of this ongoing debate. It seems to me that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to late term abortions unless very special circumstances are involved, such as gross fetal abnormality or the life of the mother.

Perhaps a federal law banning this procedure (with these exceptions) would be acceptable to both sides?

Unconstitutional after the Boggs ruling. Have a nice day!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It will not work. Nobody is trusting of giving the government the right to choose, when the people that elect government are considered unworthy to choose. This is why, constitutional amendments (when the state could not prevent the measure, getting before the people [though they tried] have uniformly passed, protecting the rights of women to make their own healthcare and pregnancy decisions without government control or penalty of lawfare to deny their rights.

I know you probably tried hard, but that sentence makes no sense grammatically or intellectually. It is completely unclear as to what you are attempting to say. Try again!

 

[White 6]

I know you probably tried hard, but that sentence makes no sense grammatically or intellectually. It is completely unclear as to what you are attempting to say. Try again!

Woodie was asking if a federal law might become necessary on abortion.
My Point: It won't work, because nobody trusts the Federal Government with that power over the citizens. The people were protected, by Supreme Court Decision, but stacking the court, made it so protection under Roe v Wade decision no longer exist. The anti-abortion people moved quickly to restrict or eliminate abortion by force of law. Some states, immediately put it on state referendum to protect the right from the right wing anti-abortion forces. Where they could get it on the ballot, it has been protected, without fail, so that government or politicians do not have the power to do away with it, as a right, in every state. Where the anti-abortion forces failed to keep it off the ballot, even in RED States. There are several states, where it is on the ballot, this fall. Most likely the outcomes will be the same ie, new protections in those states.

There will be no Federal Law on Abortion. The gutless politicians failed to get it through Congress in the past, and will not be able to get it through Congress in the future. Politician in US Congress, that run on establishing Federal Rule over the issues, will not get to Congress or Senate with anywhere near the power to take control and establish Federal Government control, and the issue is probably a career killer.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Woodie was asking if a federal law might become necessary on abortion.
My Point: It won't work, because nobody trusts the Federal Government with that power over the citizens. The people were protected, by Supreme Court Decision, but stacking the court, made it so protection under Roe v Wade decision no longer exist. The anti-abortion people moved quickly to restrict or eliminate abortion by force of law. Some states, immediately put it on state referendum to protect the right from the right wing anti-abortion forces. Where they could get it on the ballot, it has been protected, without fail, so that government or politicians do not have the power to do away with it, as a right, in every state. Where the anti-abortion forces failed to keep it off the ballot, even in RED States. There are several states, where it is on the ballot, this fall. Most likely the outcomes will be the same ie, new protections in those states.

There will be no Federal Law on Abortion. The gutless politicians failed to get it through Congress in the past, and will not be able to get it through Congress in the future. Politician in US Congress, that run on establishing Federal Rule over the issues, will not get to Congress or Senate with anywhere near the power to take control and establish Federal Government control, and the issue is probably a career killer.

Much better! Thank you! I agree with your reasoning!

 

[HikerGuy83]

Perhaps a federal law banning this procedure (with these exceptions) would be acceptable to both sides?

No. The federal government has no place passing any laws relative to abortion (for or against).

The SCOTUS has ruled in that way.

Of course heads-up-their-asses left don't know what to think anymore (did I say think..?)

 

[HikerGuy83]

Woodie was asking if a federal law might become necessary on abortion.
My Point: It won't work, because nobody trusts the Federal Government with that power over the citizens. The people were protected, by Supreme Court Decision, but stacking the court, made it so protection under Roe v Wade decision no longer exist. The anti-abortion people moved quickly to restrict or eliminate abortion by force of law. Some states, immediately put it on state referendum to protect the right from the right wing anti-abortion forces. Where they could get it on the ballot, it has been protected, without fail, so that government or politicians do not have the power to do away with it, as a right, in every state. Where the anti-abortion forces failed to keep it off the ballot, even in RED States. There are several states, where it is on the ballot, this fall. Most likely the outcomes will be the same ie, new protections in those states.

There will be no Federal Law on Abortion. The gutless politicians failed to get it through Congress in the past, and will not be able to get it through Congress in the future. Politician in US Congress, that run on establishing Federal Rule over the issues, will not get to Congress or Senate with anywhere near the power to take control and establish Federal Government control, and the issue is probably a career killer.

Do you understand the Constitution ?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Much better! Thank you! I agree with your reasoning!

Garbage. The federal government should not even be discussing the issue.

It's not in their purview.

They should be focused on the 35.3 Trillion dollar debt we have and how they are going to fix that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Garbage. The federal government should not even be discussing the issue.

It's not in their purview.

They should be focused on the 35.3 Trillion dollar debt we have and how they are going to fix that.

Uh, that's what White 6 said I thought. Did you notice his statement that I put in bold red large text?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Uh, that's what White 6 said I thought.

He said it won't be back because no one trusts the federal government with that power.

So no.

Constitutionally, it does not matter if people trust them or not. It's not their job period.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He said it won't be back because no one trusts the federal government with that power.

So no.

Constitutionally, it does not matter if people trust them or not. It's not their job period.

You are splitting hairs.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You are splitting hairs.

Not by a long shot.

Roe should never have happened to start with.

This is the whole fallacy of the decision.

Abortion had been a state issue for 200 years before Burger and his band of stupid baboons took it on.

No business at all.

Like a lot of things they do.