Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told USA Today this week that it is “possible” that Congress could pass a national ban on abortion if the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade is finalized. In the interview, McConnell confirmed that there would be nothing standing in the way of such national legislation. McConnell did not say that he was calling or planning for such a vote. He was stating that it would be legally possible if Roe is overturned. However, such a vote would leave the position of the GOP in an incomprehensible morass on its views in the area. For decades, Republicans have insisted that this issue is a state, not a federal, matter. It could also raise some difficult constitutional questions under federalism.
In the interview with USA Today published on Saturday, McConnell said:
“If the leaked opinion became the final opinion, legislative bodies—not only at the state level but at the federal level—certainly could legislate in that area,” he said. “And if this were the final decision, that was the point that it should be resolved one way or another in the legislative process. So yeah, it’s possible.”
The point of the comment is that, if there is no constitutional right to abortion, it is an area susceptible to legislative action on either the state or federal levels. Ironically, that is the same position as the Democrats who are seeking a federal protection of abortion to override the states.
There are some constitutional questions, however, that could be raised with either a federal protection or ban on abortion. Those questions include how states may be required to enforce such a ban. The Framers were deeply concerned about precisely this type of federal encroachment on state authority as James Madison discussed in Federalist #46. They created a system to support the “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.”
Such laws can unconstitutionally require states to enforce the federal law — raising so called “commandeering” issues that violate federalism protections. There can also be conditions that are viewed as so coercive in withholding state funds that they are considered unconstitutional.
In 1992, in New York v. United States, the Supreme Court invalidated part of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 as commandeering. In 1997, in Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the federal government cannot order states or cities to enforce federal law. In Independent Business v. Sebelius(2012), the Court held that the federal government could not compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs. In Murphy v. NCAA (2018), the Court again warned that Congress could not take any action that “dictates what a state legislature may and may not do” in such policy or program disputes.
Ironically, if the GOP was to push such a ban, it would not only contradict its long-held view on state’s rights in the area but would rest upon a broad interpretation of interstate commerce (another view long opposed by many in the GOP). Under existing case law, Congress could claim that abortions have interstate elements due to the travel of individuals and involvement of national medical and administrative components.
It is doubtful that such a federal ban could pass in Congress. Indeed, some Republican members would most certainly oppose such a law like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.
If this was a trial balloon, it quickly turned into a lead balloon. Pro-life members like Missouri GOP Senator Josh Hawley have already said that they would not back a federal ban. Likewise, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) said on Sunday that such a national ban would be “inconsistent with what we’ve been fighting for.”
Notably, McConnell reaffirmed that (unlike the Democrats) the GOP would continue to stand by the filibuster even if they take control of the Senate. That effectively guarantees that no such federal ban could be passed.
279 thoughts on “McConnell: Federal Abortion Ban is “Possible” if Court Strikes Down Roe v. Wade”
What the heck is WRONG with the women who get all riled up now that it looks like Roe vs Wade is going to be overturned?
The chutzpah of it all! Don’t they know they shouldn’t have sex before marriage? What good can come from that? Don’t they understand it’s your duty to only flaunt your body so that men watching you on news channels like Fox News and AON can get behind Murdoch’s messages? Clearly, ex First Lady Melania Trump’s claim to fame rises above it all.What better role model for all other women who struggle with knowing they’ve been abused, cheated on?
Men will be men and women do better if they shut up about all this. What idiot woman gives up on a life with gaudy riches or just a basic income if they can stay home and take one for the ‘team’, the Family. Smart women should let men think they are in control and all will be well. Hershel Walker accused of domestic violence? What is a man, excellent athlete, to do when his wife/partner challenges him? Matt Gaetz accused of sex with a minor? That minor should’ve known better.
Get over it, sisters, you, uppity women, you poor women, you educated women, you brown and black women, you poor, raped women? I stayed between the lines. You other women, whores all of you, had your fun. It’s MY time now as a woman. I followed all the rules, you didn’t. Some women have to pay a price and I welcome it. I’ve suffered long enough.
You seemed to forgot the pictures/video/letters of the GD Traitorous Pedophiles Joe/Hunter Biden.
I assume you’re just fine with Gangs of Pedos.
More Rocks you need?
Try 2000 Mules to clear your eyes.
As of now it appears Roberts The Compromised was the most likely that leaked as demanded by his leaders for 2022 election primary elections.
And for those playing the home game more input data:
Shh. The latest news is that the Unicorn King snuck into the Court in the middle of the night and filched the draft opinion, while Bigfoot demonstrated in a pussy hat outside as a diversion.
The esper interview is on its FACE ludicrous.
We are supposed to beleive the first president in 40 years to NOT start a new conflict in his presidency – had to be stopped repeatedly from starting a war ?
If true – where were these guys when Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama started new conflicts ?
Regardless, as Bannon notes – Trump refused to start a war with Iran – DESPITE the advice of the same people who are now claiming they were constraining Trump.
These are the same guys who fought like hell, Who Trump famously reamed out at Camp David for refusing to provide him with a plan to get out of Afghanistan.
We know who the war mongers are – and it is NOT trump.
This argument that but for some bureaucrat trump would have started a war – is made lie by the fact that ALL trump’s predecessors were more violent.
Even Biden has already managed to start a proxy war in Ukraine.
more than 2/3 of americans beleive there would be no invasion of Ukraine if Trump was president.
And we are supposed to beleive that Miley and Esper reigned Trump in ?
John B Say —-
Yeah, right – the NYT ?
That would be the same NYT that sold us the Collsuion Delusion.
Regardless, lefties fawned over Bolton when they thought he would give them the dirt on Trump.
Bolton is open about trying to architect a War with Iran, and having Trump back out at the last minute.
If Trump wanted a war with Iran – we would have had it.
Do you people on the left ever actually think ?
Do you ever read the nonsense that you buy into and say – does that make actual sense ? Is it consistent with reality ?
Trump was at odds with DoD and “the generals almost from the start.
Trump wanted out of the Mideast – out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, out of Syria.
He very nearly fired the entire top defense staff in 2017 when they had done next to nothing to get out of Afghanistan and had no plan to do so.
So given a real would in which Trump promised to get us out of mideastern entanglements, consistently acted to get us out of them.
Left office with our presence in the mideast dramatically reduced and the biggest peace deal in 50 years,
And he did so fighting neocons in his own party every step of the way.
You think that the same people who refused to leave Afghanistan were holding Trump back from War with Iran ?
And you think Trump who wanted out of the entire mideast – wanted out of foreign wars – actually wanted a war with Iran ?
If you are going to try to sell garbage – try to make it make sense.
I’m still gathering all the info I can as to address it all plus take care of everything inside my fenceline. No dought you’re doing the same…..
EXCLUSIVE: MTG Responds to Failed Challenge of Her Eligibility for Office for Questioning ‘Stolen Election’
May 9, 2022
The Alex Jones Show
For some additional insight world known attorney Robert Barnes can handle a big bat. I’m glad I signed up for his sight.
Smoking Gun Video Proves 2020 Was Stolen From Trump/ 2000 MULES CENSORED
May 8, 2022
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
2000 MULES CENSORED: Smoking Gun Video Proves 2020 Was Stolen From Trump
Reason is usually sufficient to demonstrate most of this is nonsense.
And it does not require alot of research.
We now have enormous amounts of information regarding the collusion delusion Hoax.
I a recent interview Rand Paul said the Steele Dossier was russian disinformation.
Many of us thought that for a long time, but that is WRONG.
There are no actual russian sources. Durham has exposed that the Steele Dossier is the product of Danchenko at Brookings gathering Gossip and speculation from Fusion GPS and from the DNC – no actual, Russians involved – like the Alpha Bank hoax it is all HFA concocted fraud.
But even in late 2016 it did not take much thought to realize that Putin would have to be a complete idiot to favor Trump.
Trump’s policies were all bad for Russia. Clinton’s were good for Russia. Clinton Railed about Russia – except when she was doing deals with them.
The same with this Esper nonsense. We not only know what did happen from 2016-2020, we also know who was responsible.
We know Trump stopped the attack on Iran, ordered the Takedown of Soliamani, pushed DOD to come up with a plan to leave Afghainstan and was furious when they failed to do so. That Trump and Kushner negotiated the Abraham Accords.
These are NOT things the administration did, these are well documented things TRUMP did.
And all of these are completely inconsistent with Espers portrayal of Trump.
Reality does not lie. That leaves Esper. DoD was to a very large extent an obstructive mess throughout the Trump administration.
‘I’ve updated my piece for @townhallcom to include reports that Justice Samuel Alito has been moved to an undisclosed location with his family. The man is doing his job/constitutional duty and has to fear for his life/safety and that of his family.’ -Rebecca Downs
‘I repeat — if Sonia Sotomayor had to pack up her family and leave her home for safety because conservatives didn’t like an opinion, it would get January 6th level coverage.’ -Matt Whitlock
‘The Biden Administration will condemn parents who attend school board meetings, but not protesters threatening violence against Supreme Court justices.’
FJB. You will feel the wrath of the people in November.
Threatening anyone, including — but definitely not limited to — Justices, is wrong. Alito should not be made to feel unsafe in his home.
Matt Whitlock can conjecture, but his conjecture is not a fact. The following certainly didn’t get “January 6th coverage”:
“Federal Judge Esther Salas is on a crusade. In July her husband and their son were gunned down at the family’s home in New Jersey. Her husband survived. Her son did not. … The shooter, later identified as 72-year-old lawyer Roy Den Hollander, was found after he killed himself. … “He was angry with me for being a woman,” Salas says. “He was angry with me for being Latina.” Hollander, a self-proclaimed anti-feminist, had been active in a men’s rights group. The FBI later matched his gun to the murder of a rival in that group in California. Found in Hollander’s rental car was a list of potential targets, including three other female judges. Also discovered was the latest online publication of his manifesto, in which Hollander railed about discrimination against men. …”
Are Rebecca Downs and Matt Whitlock rumor mongering?
Ilya Shapiro said he’d heard that, but he also said he was unsure whether it was true: “I don’t have any non-public sources.” “I forget whether I saw the rumor on Twitter or somebody told me. I don’t know.”
I’m surprised nobody brought up the name of professor Peter Singer. Now this guy had some strange ideas.
Back in the 1960s, some nuns were raped in the Congo. The Vatican allowed them to have abortions.
“Attorney General Merrick Garland has demonstrated over and over that he is willing to turn a blind eye to threats against Supreme Court justices at their homes, while threatening to have the FBI hunt down parents at school-board meetings.
@HouseGOP must impeach him in January.” @mrddmia
YES. Impeach Merrick Garland. What a disgrace he is.
What is this coordinated nonsense in the Sunday press about McConnell and a so-called national abortion ban? Misinformation. McConnell said that it is possible that there could be federal legislation one way or the other on abortion. And that he wouldn’t destroy the filibuster to get there. A federal abortion ban? More leftist misinformation designed to energize their base and confuse Americans who aren’t paying close attention. Even Turley falls into the trap. Where’s Nina Jankowicz when we need her?
Never let crisis go to waste. Leftist Democrats have spent the last week plotting to ram their radical abortion agenda through Federal legislation. Why? Because they think they have the raw political muscle to do it. Did you read their bill? Even the title is misinformation. It should be called the “Thank God You’re Already Born Act.” C’mon Nina, help us out on this one.
The Democrat bill would even ban restrictions on abortion up until the baby is born. That is, if the doctor thinks the pregnancy would pose a risk to the mother’s life or health. A risk. To health. You can drive a truck through that one (unless you support the Freedom Convoy, in which case the activists’ fellow travelers will ban your bank account). Democrats will claim that they mean no such thing. Hardly. Who remembers Ralph “Coon Man is the best medical school nickname ever” Northam’s ghoulish views on botched abortions? Or when Obama pontificates about “common-sense regulations” on anything? Sorry Dems, we’ve seen the leftist playbook too many times. If Democrat activists think they can gin up a crisis they can exploit to ram through their agenda, they will.
The good news is that statements like McConnell’s may force the activists to rethink their position. Some of it is just reflexive disagreement with a Republican. Not that reflexive disagreement with the one person that runs neck and neck with Nany Pelosi in the national unpopularity contest is necessarily a bad thing. More importantly, the Dems know they could lose on this one, and federal abortion restrictions could backfire badly in progressive citadels like California and New York.
Equally troubling is the view, now far too common on both sides of the aisle, that the federal government has the power to adopt abortion legislation in the first place. Read the preamble to the Thank God You’re Already Born Act. If Congress can use its Article 1, Section 8 commerce clause authority to legislate what the progressives like to call a woman’s sacrosanct, intimate decision to have an abortion, there is no limit to the federal government’s authority. If Congress is reckless enough to pass federal abortion legislation, Lopez and the 10th amendment could come roaring back. In the long term, reform of outmoded commerce clause jurisprudence and the adoption of meaningful limits on federal power could be the best thing to come out of the whole abortion mess.
Returning to the immediate question, the American people are at the cusp of an opportunity that has been denied them for 50-odd years. Return the abortion question to the American people and the democratic process. Left to their own devices, the American people will devise a more nuanced, more enduring solution than 5 black-robed progressives ever will.
From today’s WSJ, a similar point of view such as yours, I think.
Note the cut off for most of Europe, none in 3rd trimester.
1st Trimester: Weeks 1-13
2nd Trimester: Weeks 14-26
3rd Trimester: Weeks 26-40
“Europe’s Abortion Lesson”
The notable feature of abortion in Europe is that each country has tailored its laws to local mores after political debate. Britain and the Netherlands are among the more permissive, allowing abortion under most circumstances up to 24 weeks of pregnancy—and at taxpayer expense in Britain’s National Health Service.
Poland and a handful of small, majority-Catholic countries are at the other end of the spectrum, banning abortion under most circumstances although women can avail of free movement within the European Union to travel to another country.
Abortion in Sweden is available on-demand up to the 18th week, and after that only with medical permission if the fetus isn’t viable. In Italy it’s in the first 90 days. Many countries, such as Denmark, Germany and Belgium, allow abortion on demand up to the 12th week, while France recently extended it to 14 and in Portugal it’s 10. Countries tend to apply stricter limits after those times, such as requiring sign-off from multiple doctors or allowing later abortions only if the mother’s life is in danger.
Mississippi’s ban, which is the law at issue now at the Supreme Court, begins after 15 weeks.
European laws also include waiting periods for abortion in some countries, such as seven days in Italy and three in Germany. Denmark and the Netherlands are among several countries that require parental consent before minors can obtain an abortion. Germany and Belgium require counseling first.
Great point. Northern Europe, the progressives’ Nirvana, seems to have built a stable, enduring consensus. Not by judicial fiat. Through the political process. There are important points on both sides of a morally complex issue. The people will get it right.
Stooge, you’re the disinformation source. The abortion debate doesn’t end with Alito’s opinion. This is just the start of an escalating crisis where the country splits into free states and red states.
What is increasingly obvious is that abortion on demand is incredibly important to a tiny portion of the left.
While an absolute prohibition is incredibly important to a tiny portion of the right.
But for the overwhelming majority of voters, Abortion is no longer a consequential issue.
The biggest protests against Draft Dodd are in states that will have unrestricted abortion regardless.
Is there anyone here who opposes abortion who is NOT a Catholic, Evangelical or Haredi?
I rarely go to church. I have always been against SCOTUS interfering. I am firmly against abortion. I was also very supportive of the death penalty. But on that I’ve done a 180. The prosecutors have become so corrupt, they can not be trusted to lawfully take a life.
Leftis hide behind the religion red herring, because their constitutional arguments come up empty.
Only 2 people here who are anti-abortion but are not religious. That proves my point.
Jeff, your “point” is stupid. And irrelevant. Read Estovir’s post above and it will become clear that the vast, vast majority of people are in the middle, somewhere around Germany, Belgium and Mississippi. The role of religion ism not in question.
“Abortion in Sweden is available on-demand up to the 18th week, and after that only with medical permission if the fetus isn’t viable. In Italy it’s in the first 90 days. Many countries, such as Denmark, Germany and Belgium, allow abortion on demand up to the 12th week, while France recently extended it to 14 and in Portugal it’s 10. Countries tend to apply stricter limits after those times, such as requiring sign-off from multiple doctors or allowing later abortions only if the mother’s life is in danger.
Mississippi’s ban, which is the law at issue now at the Supreme Court, begins after 15 weeks.”
Among the religious in America, the fetus is a person at inception. Of course, they also believe they have an invisible friend in the sky who will answer their prayers.
Nobody has made that argument.
Retards like you have to change the topic.
The people of blind faith will pass laws imprisoning mothers for murdering their babies. It is a logical necessity of their beliefs.
More lies. Flailing like a drowning man.
Desperate to change the subject….because the facts are against your stupidity.
A self governing populace is the way to reach decisions.
“Last week the Louisiana House Criminal Justice Committee voted 7-2 to advance McCormick’s bill in which the mother or those assisting her in terminating the pregnancy can be charged with homicide.”
Democrats have a bill allowing the killing of a baby up to 28 days after date of birth
“Even the bill’s official analysis states “the bill could be interpreted to immunize a pregnant person from all criminal penalties for all pregnancy outcomes, including the death of a newborn for any reason during the “perinatal” period after birth.” The analysis further states that the “perinatal” period is either “generally used to describe the period from approximately past 22 (or 28) completed weeks of pregnancy up to 7 completed days of life,” or “the period from the establishment of pregnancy to one month following delivery.””
Trading on the extremes serves no purpose.
But you are still ignoring the topic of Alitios draft opinion. Because your brief foray trying to shift the topic to religion was exposed, now you want to examine the fringes. (as we see, also a loser for leftists)
It’s not kosher not to provide the link to a quote so that I may see its context.
Jeff, iowan’s claim isn’t true.
Here’s a fact check: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/california-not-poised-to-legalize-infanticide/
That clears matters up. I knew such claims were lies but did not know the reason. I thank you again.
What explains the difference between you and 98% of the Trumpists here? How is it that you and I seem to be in agreement much if not all the time but are at complete odds with the rest (with a tiny few exceptions)?
This is the great and enduring mystery….
Of course the claims persist – even as corrected – the plain language of the bill prevents investigation of pregnancy related deaths perinatal.
Abortion is pregnancy related.
If you do not want accused of pushin infantacide – write a better law, or just leave well enough alone.
There is not a problem begging for this law as a solution.
The bill bars investigations – but criminal investigations are ALREADY constitutionally barred absent credible evidence of a crime.
Google is your friend, 2cnd graders have if figured out, to may be out of your reach intellectually.
This is the from an early draft of the bill. So yes Democrat elected politicians have proposed to imunize a mother “perinatal” Or after the delivery of the baby.
In that version, a portion of the bill said (emphasis ours), “Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death.”
So someone is a liar – because they are telling the truth and you do not like it ?
iowan2 cited the legislation to back his claim.
What is he wrong about ?
Argument – not insult.
Here’s proof of the case you make on video from Infowars & Banned.Video:
You have no answers, except perhaps, the bottle.
“Trading on the extremes serves no purpose.”
Once a state criminalizes abortion, the only remaining question is the criminal penalty. And the more barbaric a state (such as Louisiana), the more barbaric the penalty.
Incidentally, Louisiana’s proposed penalty is perfectly consistent with the anti0abortion premises.
Sam you are good with killing a baby 30 days after birth? That’s just opens the door to executing mean kindergartners.
“Sam you are good with killing a baby 30 days after birth?”
….vast majority of people are in the middle, somewhere around Germany, Belgium and Mississippi. The role of religion ism not in question.
Europe is far less religious than America. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis have all stated that Europe has become irrelevant because of their loss of religious history. Pope Francis called Europe “a barren woman”, which angered Angela Merkel. Germany has one of the lowest birth dates in Europe.
When I read the WSJ article it struck me that Mississippi is paving the way for our nation on this legal issue, and this from a state that the Left denigrates time after time. Clearly Mississippi is the norm while CA and NY embracs genocide.
Pro-aborts are about selfishness, which typifies the trajectory of our country since the 1960s. Respect for life, particularly for the “other”, went out the window decades ago. What is instructive about this issue is that Pro-aborts are accelerating the extinction of our world. Back in the 1980s/90s, the Left were continually beating their war drums about alarming levels of global population. In the 70s their drum beat was predicting an ice age. Leonard Nimoy hosted a laughable video on the coming ice age that is available on youtube.
The US birth rate has been in free fall for decades. Pre-COVID, the US birth rate was 1.64 births per American woman. The replacement level fertility rate should be at 2.1 births per woman to offset deaths and ensure our species exists. Young kids today are dating less, marrying later if at all, and rejecting having large families, certainly more than 2 kids per marriage. Forget obesity, cardiovascular events, cancer. Americans are not reproducing at a rate high enough to ensure the survival of our species.
Women were designed so as to make sure humans continued in the world. Animals, bacteria, fungi, plants reproduce unfettered so they can continue to exist and be consequential. Then there is the Left which is intent on going against the science like modern day Medievalist, and make our species inconsequential. Instead of calling them Pro-aborts they should be called extinctionists.
“Americans are not reproducing at a rate high enough to ensure the survival of our species.”
What total bunk.
Reproduction in a single country is largely irrelevant to survival of our species. The human population on earth is close to 8 billion people and is still growing.
It would be good if women who wish to have abortions got them earlier in pregnancy, not least because it’s safer for the woman. But if you’re going to compare the US to European countries, keep in mind that one of the reasons that women in Europe have an earlier limit is because European countries generally pay for abortion as part of health care and have local access to abortion as healthcare, so poor women do not have to spend time to save up money for the cost of the abortion, the cost of travel, the cost of taking time off work, …
Teh global population will peak at about 11B people in the next couple of decades and then start declining.
However the negative impacts of decline are already showing in much of the world that has already peaked.
“Women were designed . . .”
That disgusting view of a woman is lower than “barefoot and pregnant.” It’s Medieval.
“Jeff, your “point” is stupid. And irrelevant.”
A person’s basic ideas — what animates them — is “irrelevant?” Whether they have a rational argument or a faith-based conclusion is “irrelevant?”
Someone does not take ideas seriously.
May 9, 2022 at 3:51 PM
The portion I cut and pasted is from the link provided by anonymous. The link that is supposed to show I’m wrong. But this is the information at the link
It proves that arguing at the extreme edges is meaningless. That was the only point I am making.
So stay on topic and stop with all the diversions.
A self selected result.
The vast majority of the discussion on this blog is focused on the Courts messed up logic. Very few are demanding the courts follow religious teaching, Following the Constitution is all the pro life side is advocating for.
That me @6:53. posting from another device.
As I exposed then. The left uses the fake talking point about Religion, as an ad hominem attack, rather than keep the discussion focused on the Courts making stuff up.
I don’t attack religious people personally; rather, I ridicule their inane beliefs. No beliefs are sacrosanct.
Their irrational beliefs are a result of being inculcated in their formative years by their brainwashed parents. Child abuse if you ask me. Fortunately, a college education deprograms the youth from these infantile superstitions. Education is our only salvation.
You should learn something about a topic, so as to not expose your stupidity.
The question? Why are you so focused to change the topic to Religion?
As I noted earlier, You are forced to, because you fail in the debate, focused on the Constitution.
Those in favor of abortion prior to viability would not be called “baby killers” but for religious indoctrination.
More emotive rants. Still off topic. Tired of getting proven wrong at every turn, when forced to stay on the Constitutional foundation of the the debate. It is clear you fear people that have a foundational way of life rooted in faith. But that is not the topic. Is it?
I don’t fear irrational religious people as much as I pity them. I do fear Trumpists however.
“Following the Constitution is all the pro life side is advocating for.”
Really? Where in the Constitution does it grant government the power to control a woman;s body, medical procedures, property, future, life?
Sam you are not reading the comments, or lying.
The State has a Constitutional interest in protecting life.
Sam, you continually conflate the Constitution with your libertarian beliefs. My complaint is not with your understanding of your ideology. Instead, I am concerned with your lack of recognition that the Constitution exists.
i & S:
The conservative’s view of the Constitution, on this issue, is that there is no right to an abortion, because one is not named in the Constitution. (As a result, they argue, kick the issue to the states for the majority to decide.)
I have explained repeatedly, from numerous angles, why that view of the nature and purpose of America’s Constitution is fundamentally wrong. (And I have explained, from countless angles, why the “result” is tyranny of the majority.)
If you choose to not see those points, or to evade them, that is on you.
Sam, there are conservative religious views and other views. You are being inaccurate. Many who call themselves conservatives are not religious. You have defined conservative in a very restrictive manner to prove your point. If you wish to do it that way, go ahead but first define the word conservative and live with it in further discussions.
It is clear that abortion rights, both historically and Constitutionally, belong at the level of the states. You can have your own argument, but it will not be in accord with our history. It would help if you made your point based on the facts at hand using standard definitions or describing the definitions of the words you wish to use differently.
There is nothing in the above response or previous responses that respond to the question. I read all your posts directed to me, but I can miss some directed to others. State your argument if one exists, along with the definitions that might not be the most common.
I will repeat what I said above so that the direction of the discussion is clear.
Sam, you continually conflate the Constitution with your libertarian beliefs. My complaint is not with your understanding of your ideology. Instead, I am concerned with your lack of recognition that the Constitution exists.
“first define the word conservative” “along with the definitions”
Any other demands I have to satisfy, before you’ll acknowledge the reality of conservative’s (wrong-headed) view of the Constitution? Define “the?” Define “and?” The entire dictionary?
Sam, I see you keep running away from the discussion. I can’t help it if you wish to insert your own meanings into words. I am only trying to clarify what you have to say.
Tell us what that “(wrong-headed) view of the Constitution” is. I don’t think you will ever provide a direct answer.
“The conservative’s view of the Constitution, on this issue, is that there is no right to an abortion…” Is that the conservative position? That might be the view of a subsegment of the conservative population but not the entire group. Of course, one can stretch your comment to mean some other things, but you also have to define precisely what you are talking about.
You are too loose with words when one is trying to understand a position that is teetering due to lack of specificity.
All rights are not found in the constitution. The 9th amendment makes that clear.
But that does not mean we can create rights from thin air.
There is no unlimited right to kill, not humans,. not animals. You can not kill a human except in self defense or defense of others.
You can not kill an eagle for any reason, you can not kill most wolves. You can not kill an endangered species, you can not go out into the back yard and slice your pets throat and dismember them. You can not kill deer without a license. You can not kill fish without a license.
There is not even a right to kill insects with DDT.
We accept that the state can restrict killing – it is not a right.
The right to privacy – can be applied to birth control – but not abortion.
Your property rights over your own body give you the right to plastic surgery, to change your genitals.
They give you the right to end the dependence of a pregnancy on your body.
But that is not the right to kill it, and we already accept that the state can regulate killing of both humans and non humans.
There is no unrestricted right to kill.
Where have you actually argued – credibly any of the things you claim ?
An assertion is not an argument.
I have seen very few actual arguments her regarding Abortion – none from the left.
I have argued a constitutionally defensible right to remove the fetus from your body, but that is as far as the constitution will take you.
I have also argued an originalist disproof of Alito’s draft.
I have not seen anyone on the left do so.
Me. I am not religious, and wasn’t brought up in a religion. Abortion is murder, and I don’t abide by murder either. Weird, huh??
So you believe a human being is created at insemination? And the morning after pill is murder?
Wen Bars says:
“Abortion is murder, and I don’t abide by murder either.”
You must agree then that not only the physician but the mother should be prosecuted for first degree murder since abortion is a premeditated and unjustifiable homicide.
I presume baby killing is a capital offense since 90% of pro-life advocates are in favor of the Death Penalty.
An embryo is not a person.
Do you also consider it murder when IVF embryos are discarded?
Do you think embryos should be counted in the census?
(I can see it now: a Congressional district in which 1/3 of the “constituents” sit in a frozen embryo bank.)
Oh that wacky Mitch. The Congress could also ban cream in your coffee on a nationwide basis. They won’t do that either. Legally possible isn’t the same as politically feasible. The Left jumps on command, don’t they?
In a nutshell!
and that U.S.C. would be constitutional,
but they won’t.
Comments are closed.