DeSantis 2024?

[KLB]

This is said a lot but I do not think that is true. SCOTUS said the roe ruling was incorrect on constitutional grounds, not that the fed could not pass laws concerning abortion. If the point were true then neither could pass a law for or against…

OK. What part of the Constitution would give the Fed authority over abortion? Just as generally murder is not a federal crime if committed in a state, I do not see how abortion could be.

 

[Ingomike]

OK. What part of the Constitution would give the Fed authority over abortion? Just as generally murder is not a federal crime if committed in a state, I do not see how abortion could be.

The feds constitutionally have the authority over abortion, because they may someday draw federal benefits…

 

[Twangbanger]

I had to laugh (bitterly) at republicans joining democrats in Nebraska and South Carolina to defeat abortion restrictions. How stupid are these people. They have just abandoned a portion of their base while gaining nothing. Their opponents on the left will blame all republicans for the legislation that was defeated and women will buy into that narrative in droves. Their help in defeating these bills will not shield them from either being tarred with the same brush as all republicans nor the wrath of the constituents they betrayed

The Pro Choice Republicans obviously believe "Team R" suffers more from being associated with Pro Life zealots than moderates. And I don't know enough about their situation to say they're wrong.

Abortion isn't the #1 issue for most people. It seems to me the Pro Choice Republicans are trying to make sure the "Abortion is #1" mentality doesn't become the driver of every race in their state.

 

[BugI02]

Let’s face it…republicans like ******* the babysitters too. And if somehow one of them gets pregnant, they still want that option available.

Fire next time

 

[BugI02]

The Pro Choice Republicans obviously believe "Team R" suffers more from being associated with Pro Life zealots than moderates. And I don't know enough about their situation to say they're wrong.

Abortion isn't the #1 issue for most people. It seems to me the Pro Choice Republicans are trying to make sure the "Abortion is #1" mentality doesn't become the driver of every race in their state.

I don't disagree, but what will happen is they will be castigated for the legislative attempt to outlaw abortion even though they were instrumental in defeating the attempt

Their opponents will lump them in with all the other republicans as wanting to outlaw women's 'right' to kill their unborn children and the help they rendered this progressive cause will be immediately forgotten

Assuming they don't truly believe people should be able to kill the unborn at will (for if they do, why are they claiming to be republican/conservative), then whatever advantage they hoped to gain politically I can guarantee will not accrue, the left will credit them nothing

 

[jamil]

OK. What part of the Constitution would give the Fed authority over abortion? Just as generally murder is not a federal crime if committed in a state, I do not see how abortion could be.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What about “reserved to” do they not understand?

 

[KLB]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What about “reserved to” do they not understand?

Well, "they" don't believe there are any rights reserved.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

OK. What part of the Constitution would give the Fed authority over abortion? Just as generally murder is not a federal crime if committed in a state, I do not see how abortion could be.

We are entitled to "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

That's the best I came come up with. Personally I think abortion should fall under the 10th amendment.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I had to laugh (bitterly) at republicans joining democrats in Nebraska and South Carolina to defeat abortion restrictions. How stupid are these people. They have just abandoned a portion of their base while gaining nothing. Their opponents on the left will blame all republicans for the legislation that was defeated and women will buy into that narrative in droves. Their help in defeating these bills will not shield them from either being tarred with the same brush as all republicans nor the wrath of the constituents they betrayed

I looked this up... in Nebraska, there was one Republican Senator who abstained voting in the cloture vote to end debate and bring the 6-week heartbeat bill to the floor for a vote. He had proposed a 12-week amendment which was not allowed to be voted upon. His name is Merv, so he's probably not one of the "Republican Women" the MSM is chattering about. It missed by one vote (2/3's) being put to a floor vote.

In SC, at total abortion ban from conception missed by one vote with several R's "defecting"... I'm assuming this is where the "Republican Women" narrative comes from. SC had previously passed and signed into law (2021) a 6-week heartbeat ban that was later invalided by the SC Supreme Court as unconstitutional under SC Constitution. The make-up of that court has since changed.

The Pro Choice Republicans obviously believe "Team R" suffers more from being associated with Pro Life zealots than moderates. And I don't know enough about their situation to say they're wrong.

Abortion isn't the #1 issue for most people. It seems to me the Pro Choice Republicans are trying to make sure the "Abortion is #1" mentality doesn't become the driver of every race in their state.

Question, well two actually...

1. Does supporting a 12-week ban (Nebraska), but not a 6-week ban make Merv "Pro Choice"?
2. Does supporting a 6-week ban but not a total ban from conception (SC) make you "Pro Choice"?

 

[Twangbanger]

I don't disagree, but what will happen is they will be castigated for the legislative attempt to outlaw abortion even though they were instrumental in defeating the attempt

Their opponents will lump them in with all the other republicans as wanting to outlaw women's 'right' to kill their unborn children and the help they rendered this progressive cause will be immediately forgotten

Assuming they don't truly believe people should be able to kill the unborn at will (for if they do, why are they claiming to be republican/conservative), then whatever advantage they hoped to gain politically I can guarantee will not accrue, the left will credit them nothing

You're talking about the "guilt by association" of having an R next to your name, which is always a given. What these legislators were faced with, was going the extra step, and personally putting their name on the abortion ban. You're trying to make the two sound like they're equivalent, but they're not. Putting your name on the ban, tattoos that issue on you forever. For some of these legislators, being a statehouse Rep may not be the final political step of their career. If you have further aspirations, that "tattoo" of having voted for an abortion ban follows you the rest of your life. Of course Democrats are never going to like you. But not all Republicans are Pro Life. Not voting for that ban deprives the Democrats of one personalized "hit ad" which can be very effectively used to neutralize turnout from Pro Choice Republican women, in every single political race that person runs in for the rest of their lives. If they run for Congress? Guess what? That vote would be right back in their faces.

In a world where Abortion is not the #1 issue for the vast majority of people, not wanting the "Property of Pro Life Movement" tattoo on their azz for the rest of their political lives is completely understandable. Some Republican legislators are simply saying, "Sorry, we're not following you off that cliff."

This is what a "States' Issue" looks like, in actual practice. The Pro Life movement has been telling themselves for 25 years that their ultrasound pictures are "changing peoples' minds." When put to actual votes, in many places, that turns out not to be the case. Republicans voluntarily ripped the scab off a > half-century old issue. A lot of Republicans, outside the evangelical bubble chamber, don't agree with the Pro Life movement. When you rip off that scab, and put it to a vote at the state level, it doesn't mean 100% of Red States follow suit. It just means the opportunity to put it to a vote, f*** around and "find out." One of the very real risks you run is that not all your registered voters are going to agree with you on it.

The Pro Life movement has to contend with the very real possiblity that their Red State "win rate" might be less than 100%. Roe v Wade was the law of the land for half a century. This is not going to just be given to them.

 

[BugI02]

Question, well two actually...

1. Does supporting a 12-week ban (Nebraska), but not a 6-week ban make Merv "Pro Choice"?
2. Does supporting a 6-week ban but not a total ban from conception (SC) make you "Pro Choice"?

Does how long you're willing to let them live before they are killed affect whether you can claim to be 'pro-life'?

If they are threatening the mother's lifestyle, not her life, do you suppose God will consider it a righteous killing or murder - because after all, that is the judgement that will really matter

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Does how long you're willing to let them live before they are killed affect whether you can claim to be 'pro-life'?

If they are threatening the mother's lifestyle, not her life, do you suppose God will consider it a righteous killing or murder - because after all, that is the judgement that will really matter

While you didn’t specifically answer my question, generally you did. From the extreme pro-life perspective, anything other than a 100% ban from the moment of conception is “anti-life”, ergo pro-choice.

By this definition, only 8-9% of voters are pro-life according to polling data… 100% ban, no exceptions.

 

[BugI02]

By this definition, only 8-9% of voters are pro-life according to polling data… 100% ban, no exceptions.

Does doing what's right require a certain level of popularity?

Should we be OK with 'trans affirmative' child mutilation provided enough people in polls think it is OK?

Will you give up your guns when 51% of poll respondents think you should?

"wide is the gate, and broad is the way ..."

 

[BugI02]

But back to the point I was originally trying to make

If torpedoing restrictions on abortion was a political calculation for those republicans, they have chosen unwisely. There will be no gratitude from the left for their vote and no forgiveness from the right.

If their vote was a consequence of deeply held belief, then may God have mercy on their soul

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Does doing what's right require a certain level of popularity?

Should we be OK with 'trans affirmative' child mutilation provided enough people in polls think it is OK?

Will you give up your guns when 51% of poll respondents think you should?

"wide is the gate, and broad is the way ..."

When you pursue a policy only 8-9% of the voters support, and a super majority oppose, odds are you’ll get voted out and the other guys will implement something drastically different… I.e. the other extreme we’ve endured for quite some time under RvW.

 

[BugI02]

C'est la guerre

If it's solely about winning, what will you do when Trump becomes the republican nominee but you've sworn never to vote for him again?

I can agree that we have many more pressing problems that should be dealt with first, but Dobb's is a fact of life going forward - and it is hypocritical to argue abortion is now a matter for the states but criticize attempts by states to address that issue

 

[BugI02]

If ostensibly conservative/republican/right leaning voters will do ANYTHING that makes the rolling back of cultural marxism any less likely then the pain just hasn't been enough yet

 

[Twangbanger]

If ostensibly conservative/republican/right leaning voters will do ANYTHING that makes the rolling back of cultural marxism any less likely then the pain just hasn't been enough yet

The pain from cultural marxism can take various forms. In 2040, the first crop of crotch-goblins "saved" by Republican abortion restrictions will reach prime criminal age. When these kids are born, their mothers aren't going to give them to Julie Andrews, who will whisk them away to a chalet in the Alps where singing nuns will teach them to be productive citizens. Their mothers are going to apply for WIC, AFDC, Food Stamps, etc., etc., and our tax dollars are going to pay for these kids to be raised under the worst possible examples of adult role modeling.

The more-obese females will reach reproductive age in as soon as 10 years.

You ain't seen pain yet.

 

[Ingomike]

The pain from cultural marxism can take various forms. In 2040, the first crop of crotch-goblins "saved" by Republican abortion restrictions will reach prime criminal age. When these kids are born, their mothers aren't going to give them to Julie Andrews, who will whisk them away to a chalet in the Alps where singing nuns will teach them to be productive citizens. Their mothers are going to apply for WIC, AFDC, Food Stamps, etc., etc., and our tax dollars are going to pay for these kids to be raised under the worst possible examples of adult role modeling.

The more-obese females will reach reproductive age in as soon as 10 years.

You ain't seen pain yet.

So should the whole strategy change? Maybe instead of aborting the offshoot, the host is aborted…

 

[Twangbanger]

So should the whole strategy change? Maybe instead of aborting the offshoot, the host is aborted…

The strategy should absolutely change. The incentives are ass-backwards, and society is spending its money as "dumb-ly" as we possibly could. If you wanted more adoptions, you would pay the mothers an amount of money to give the kid up for adoption, equal to what she would get if she kept it and collected the Federal Paycheck.

In fact, I'd go a step farther, and tell them if you are at that income level, you should not be having a kid - then give her the benefit to give the kid up, while giving her _nothing_ if she decides to keep it. I bet they would figure it out and do the right thing.

Currently, we're just guaranteeing and subsidizing intergenerational poverty and crime. George Gilder in the 1980s referred to this as "artificially propping up female independence." It's motivated by wrong-headed ideas about female independence ("She needs a government check - not a man") and Feminism ("She needs a job - not a man").

Society would literaly be better off letting the kids starve to death, compared to how we're spending that money now.