BREAKING: Roe v. Wade might be overruled or severely weakened by SCOTUS (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 11, 2024, 09:27:04 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  BREAKING: Roe v. Wade might be overruled or severely weakened by SCOTUS (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: BREAKING: Roe v. Wade might be overruled or severely weakened by SCOTUS  (Read 12202 times)
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,881
Spain


« on: May 17, 2021, 10:27:48 AM »

I'm honestly increasingly beginning to believe this is a good thing. It would drive D turnout up and R turnout down for the midterms.

And the women unable to get abortions in the meantime are just collateral damage?

Which will do more long-term damage to the country? A few months of abortion being harder to get, or Republicans winning big in 2022?

Surely after 2010 we should all know the answer by now.

It's going to be a lot longer than 3 months. It's not like a 55-47 senate or whatever can just overrule a Supreme Court decision. It will be years if not decades before abortion has a chance to become legal in every state again,  basically waiting to appoint enough justices to the Supreme Court who are willing to reverse the new precedent and getting the right case in front of them.

Worth noting there is also the possibility of a constitutional amendment to re-legalize abortion. Not like that is any more realistic (if anything it is a lot less realistic)
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,881
Spain


« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2021, 10:30:36 AM »

I'm honestly increasingly beginning to believe this is a good thing. It would drive D turnout up and R turnout down for the midterms.

And the women unable to get abortions in the meantime are just collateral damage?

But people keep on telling me that abortion bans have no affect on the rate of abortion!

If you want to be precise, rich women who want to get an abortion will get an abortion by travelling to California/Canada for the weekend (your pick) and paying out of pocket; while poor women will just have to suck it up and raise the child (or put him up for adoption, or do a dangerous illegal abortion)
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,881
Spain


« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2021, 11:02:03 AM »


I somewhat agree with you even if I am pro-choice. However a follow-up question (not just to you in particular but really to anyone who believes life starts at conception in general).

If we are to believe life starts at conception, and therefore any abortion after that should be illegal, wouldn't that imply banning the "morning after pill"? (Since the morning after pill acts after fertilization)

What about an IUD? (which works by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg).

Tbf I guess this really only moves the threshold from conception to implantation which is not a significant movement but I guess it shows there is some nuance.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 12 queries.