Danni, pro-abortion policy is the Dems bread and butter (you are running on it this cycle) with that said, I'm simply reminding you that you've actually had the opportunity 16 years ago to do something on it and chose not to.

#5 | Posted by Bluewaffles

Let me put this argument to bed in clear terms.

There is no law that Congress could have passed that would have changed the Dobbs decision.

Do you understand that?

You see Congress has the power to do 2 categories of things:

1. their enumerated powers
2. protect both enumerated and unenumerated rights.

Dobbs SPECIFICALLY stated women do not have a right to an abortion.

Therefore, Congress has no authority to pass a law that protects a woman's right to an abortion or any medical procedure for that matter. Congress has no enumerated power to do so.

They can, effectively, deny abortions nationwide through regulating the interstate sale of the materials/equipment to perform abortions though.

You have been informed, now stop this argument.

We can admire the courage of medical professionals that would would withhold life saving medical treatment in order to make a political point about policy with which they disagree.

#11 | Posted by visitor_

Visitor do you wonder why people consider you scum?

"Trump has nothing to do with Texas abortion law. Whether he wins or loses, it will have no bearing on these laws."

Christ the ignorance hurts

First, Texas wouldn't be able to enforce an abortion law if the SC didn't issue the Dobbs decision AND previously refuse to overturn SB-8

------- put 3 justices on the SC

Those 3 justices were part of the SC

Don't trust me, listen to the "man" himself: "After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, I was able to kill Roe v. Wade, much to the shock' of everyone," Trump, the former president and front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination, said on his social media platform.

Second,
If ------- is reelected it is HIGHLY likely that a nationwide abortion ban will be implemented.

I see visiturd refuses to read my #13

SCOTUS did not make abortion illegal. Texas did. And in this case, it actually looks like it would have been legal. Even in Texas.

#22 | Posted by madbomber

For the thick skulled, I will repost this:

When a Texas court ruled that a 31-year-old woman with a non-viable pregnancy could have an abortion despite the state's strict bans, the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, responded with a brazen threat to prosecute "hospitals, doctors, or anyone else" who would assist in providing the procedure. The letter he sent Texas hospitals hours after the ruling, threatening first-degree felonies that could result in life in prison, was a "stunning" move indicative of his longstanding crusade to criminalize abortion care, say legal experts and advocates.

life in prison

for a procedure a texass court ruled was legal

You think so?

You think the Supreme Court is going to reverse their position that it is up to the states?

And even if they did, some states have already written the right to an abortion into their state constitutions.

I don't think it would be possible to create a nationwide ban on abortion unless it were carried out through an amendment to the constitution. Which is not gonna happen.

#24 | Posted by madbomber

Oh dear god!

take a civics course!!!

You have no idea how our government works.

Federal law trumps state laws. Full Stop.

You see federal law is passed by Congress

There is ALREADY a federal law on the books (the Comstock Act) that prohibits the mailing of abortion related materials.

All ------- has to do is to enforce the Comstock Act and poof abortion is effectively banned nationwide.

Because abortion medication and equipment has to be mailed you see.

And Congress has the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce.

Which was the basis for the Comstock Act.

I predict you will ignore these FACTS and continue with your ignorance

#23 The beauty of the system is if you don't like Texas law, move. If there's one law over the whole nation, we can't escape.

#26 | Posted by visitor_

1. Basic human rights should not be state by state
2. -------- state's abortion laws are clogging non--------- states abortion providers with patients, preventing the citizens of the non--------- states from getting necessary care
3. ------- will pass or enforce a nationwide ban

Magats are truly despicable people.

Seems like Democrats should have went to the legislative branch with it when they had the chance.

#52 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Morons like you appear to refuse to actually read the thread.

Here is a simple question for you, if you are right:

What power does Congress have to pass a law that protects abortion (or ANY medical procedure) nationwide, that this court would be bound to respect?

It should be a simple question to answer.

But like madbummer and visiturd you will refuse to answer.

I don't think it would be possible to create a nationwide ban on abortion unless it were carried out through an amendment to the constitution. Which is not gonna happen.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-11-01 11:13 AM |

How dare you take their tantrum away from them.

#44 | Posted by lfthndthrds

One idiot crowing for another moron.

You and madbummer do not understand basic civics.

Abortion is no longer a right, per Dobbs.

So, Congress cannot protect it.

Congress CAN restrict it through the commerce clause-a power they actually have.

Seems like Democrats should have went to the legislative branch with it when they had the chance.

#52 | Posted by lfthndthrds

What law could congress have passed that would have changed Dobbs?

"You and madbummer do not understand basic civics."

C'mon. You're joking, right?

How can you say someone doesn't understand civics when you don't understand it yourself?

Where did you study constitutional law again?

#81 | Posted by madbomber

I am not joking because you repeatedly express wrong positions.

"What power does Congress have to pass a law that protects abortion (or ANY medical procedure) nationwide, that this court would be bound to respect?"

Through an amendment to the constitution. It can occur two ways. Either 2/3rds of state legislatures, OR, a 2/3rds vote in both the house and the senate.

But you knew this, right, being an expert on constitutional law and all...

#82 | Posted by madbomber

Congrats, you sort of got an answer and it only took 24 hours.

YOU also seem to be getting closer to seeing a distinction between protecting and restricting something

Censored FINALLY found the right answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

"I am not joking because you repeatedly express wrong positions."

As in-positions that are in conflict with the constitution? Do elaborate.

#92 | Posted by madbomber

Well, I will just post a few examples:

You think the Supreme Court is going to reverse their position that it is up to the states?

And even if they did, some states have already written the right to an abortion into their state constitutions.

I don't think it would be possible to create a nationwide ban on abortion unless it were carried out through an amendment to the constitution. Which is not gonna happen.

Posted by madbomber

TH: A nationwide ban is as simple as enforcing the Comstock Act. You seem to not understand that federal law is supreme over state law. So an amendment is NOT required to implement a ban.

Next

"IDK, maybe dictating to Congress on how to spend? As in Congress delegated the authority to forgive student loans to the executive branch, but the SC overturned that action."

More like dictating to congress how not to spend, right? In this case, telling the president what he couldn't do with taxpayer dollars. That'd kinda their job.

Posted by madbomber

TH: You completely and utterly mistakes what the Supreme Court's powers are. There sole power is to adjudicate conflicts between parties where an injury has occurred. It is not to dictate to congress how to or not to spend. Nor is it their job to tell the president what he can or can't do with taxpayer dollars. It is Congress' job to tell the Executive Branch how to spend taxpayer dollars. If there is an injured party by the way the president interprets the law, the injured party can seek redress through the Courts.

It is NOT the SC's job to say that the president's acts are not within his authority unless related to a specific injury. no injury no SC role. The MO agency was not injured by the Exec. Branch's actions. THUS THE SC HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE and say the Executive Branch couldn't forgive loans. All through the process, if Congress did not want Biden to do that, they could have passed a law saying he couldn't. that is why what the SC did was legislating

Next

"Therefore, Congress does not have the authority to tell states that they must allow abortions."

They can. They did. SOCTUS determined that they lacked the authority under the constitution to do so.

So...what's the problem?

Posted by madbomber

TH: Congress did not tell the states to do anything. The SC did not determine they lacked the authority to do so.

These are 3 obvious examples, there are more.

"...pet causes ..."

This is an incredibly disgusting attitude.

Do you have women in your life?

Do you not care that they have fewer rights now?

Do you not care that their ability to plan their lives is hindered?

Do you not care that their health is at risk?

Do you not care that women will have less opportunities for education and careers because they will be stuck raising unwanted children?

I have said it before, I'll say it again, I have ZERO respect for any man that does not fully support a woman's reproductive freedom.

Here's hoping you never find yourself wandering a hospital begging someone, anyone, to help a loved one. If what I went through happened today, in a -------- state, that would have been me.

I have a daughter, and I have made it clear to her that as long as I am alive she will have the ability to choose what to do with her body.

"Do you not care that they have fewer rights now?"

They do?

Walk me though that as well.

#105 | Posted by madbomber

You're shown yourself to be more than a troll

nothing more than a troll

"You are not a serious person."

I don't think any of you know what you are talking about. Comstock addresses mail and freight services. It could, maybe, affect the distribution of medication used to cause abortions. But that's about it. And even that is a very serious stretch.

#109 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-11-02 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:
(Choose)

And technically, if that's the case, abortion is already being performed illegally. Comstock has been in place for a long time.

#110 | Posted by madbomber a

God, you're stupid.

Let's parse your stupidity a tad

We know what we are talking about, you clearly don't.

The Comstock Act WILL effect EVERY abortion.

Most abortions are done through medications.

Those medications are mailed-BOOM no longer permitted

If you ship those medications across state lines-BOOM no longer permitted.

So, I suppose, pharmaceutical manufacturers COULD set up factories in every state.

What about non medicine abortions?

Wellllll, those require equipment, right?

Doctors need to buy that equipment, right?

That equipment would therefore be...... shipped-BOOM no longer permitted.

I guess they could be bought by the doctor but once he crosses a state line-BOOM no longer permitted.

You do realize that pretty much makes getting an abortion pretty much illegal, right?

"You are not a serious person."

I don't think any of you know what you are talking about. Comstock addresses mail and freight services. It could, maybe, affect the distribution of medication used to cause abortions. But that's about it. And even that is a very serious stretch.

#109 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-11-02 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:
(Choose)

And technically, if that's the case, abortion is already being performed illegally. Comstock has been in place for a long time.

#110 | Posted by madbomber a

Donnerboy addresses how Comstock was not enforceable under RvW.

Welllllll, on top of what Donner says, there is ALSO the matter of the government CHOOSING to enforce it.

Fortunately, we have a moral Presidential administration in effect, who are NOT enforcing it.

what about if ------- is elected?

WELLLLLL, a person likely to either be his AG or hold a high place in his DoJ has said that they will be enforcing the Comstock Act. In fact, he is adamant that people don't talk about it or ask ------- about it so voters won't be aware of it during voting. Plus Project 2025

OH and BTW, the Comstock Act is making its' appearance in court cases including before the SC

so, once again, you prove yourself ignorant of basic civics.

echnically, it would make pretty much everything occurring in a hospital illegal.

I said "would". I meant "did."

Its already illegal.

#137 | Posted by madbomber

You are correct in one way, but not realizing it I suspect.

It is correct that shipping abortion drugs is now illegal. Has been since Dobbs.

Because there is no longer a constitutional right to use those drugs. Prior to Dobbs, there was a right to use those medications, thus Comstock was unenforcable.

The ONLY reason people are NOT being charged is because the Biden Administration CHOOSES not too.

That FACT is not even debatable.

Speaking of dead laws ------- is threatening to enforce the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

--------making the 18th and 19th century great again!

"You're shown yourself to be more than a troll"

The statement I would expect from someone who couldn't actually answer the question.

#135 | Posted by madbomber

TH: You mean this question?

The 21st amendment legalized the production and sale of alcohol, but there are still dry counties in some parts of the US (that I would never visit).

Do you know why?

#94 | Posted by madbomber

Yes, I do, because the 21st Amendment allows for states to regulate alcohol.

I have zero idea what you think that has to do with the current discussion.

"It is correct that shipping abortion drugs is now illegal. Has been since Dobbs."

Why wasn't it before Dobbs?

What changed?

#159 | Posted by madbomber a

Too many multiple syllable words for you?

RvW gave women the right to have an abortion.

Thus enforcing Comstock was against that right.

Dobbs, said, women have no right to an abortion.

Now Comstock can be enforced.

You understand yet?

"Yes, I do, because the 21st Amendment allows for states to regulate alcohol."

No, the 21st amendment simply mirrors the 10th amendment.

The 2st amendment simply ended federal criminalization of alcohol production, sale, or consumption. It did nothing to prevent the states from implementing legal restrictions.

#160 | Posted by madbomber

I fail to understand your point

Sale, etc of alcohol is not a right that people had.

RvW identified an unenumerated right.

Thus the states could not infringe on that right.

Dobbs said no you do not have a right.

Congress can pass laws to effectively implement a nationwide abortion BAN through regulating it under the commerce clause

There is no such power in the constitution for Congress to PROTECT abortion nationwide.

Which is what I have been saying all along