Women's Health Issues

[Mickey]

[wease]

So the states can decide whether or not you can make the choice but the feds will just take the choice away?

[Chris_H_2]

i thought life begins at conception

[Bi_3]

So the states can decide whether or not you can make the choice but the feds will just take the choice away?

15 weeks is usually cited in polls as when folks want the cut-off. Perhaps this is actually middle ground to win back women voters? Like if a federal law exists then it overrides state bans. Several Dems (and the two pro-choice red team women) were trying to this for months to pass a law that codifies Roe, but since a lot of Dems want to run on abortion for November they aren't getting much traction.

[Mickey]

A federal law would not, as far as I understand it, override state law.

[Chris_H_2]

A federal law would not, as far as I understand it, override state law.

how would a state law not be preempted if it’s less restrictive?

[4/5]

A federal law would not, as far as I understand it, override state law.

how would a state law not be preempted if it’s less restrictive?

It would override less restrictive laws but allow states to impose more restrictive laws.

[Mickey]

A federal law would not, as far as I understand it, override state law.

how would a state law not be preempted if it’s less restrictive?

It would override less restrictive laws but allow states to impose more restrictive laws.

Sorry, yes, to be clear, and as far as I understand it, Graham's proposal would override the laws permitting abortions at later stages in New York but would not stop Mississippi from imposing a near total ban. Which is why I don't really understand Bi_3's argument--this would further restrict abortion rights in blue states, it would not create some kind of national middle ground framework.

[Chris_H_2]

A federal law would not, as far as I understand it, override state law.

how would a state law not be preempted if it’s less restrictive?

It would override less restrictive laws but allow states to impose more restrictive laws.

Sorry, yes, to be clear, and as far as I understand it, Graham's proposal would override the laws permitting abortions at later stages in New York but would not stop Mississippi from imposing a near total ban. Which is why I don't really understand Bi_3's argument--this would further restrict abortion rights in blue states, it would not create some kind of national middle ground framework.

it also completely undermines the two bases of most anti-choice people: (1) states' rights (it can't be that it should be up to the states only when they align with my position), and (2) life begins at conception.

[Mickey]

I don't think most anti-choice folks actually believe in states' rights, I think it's just a rhetorical position they take to defend their non-compliance with the standard of Roe or their joy in its erosion. They'd love to pass a national ban if it felt achievable.

[simple schoolboy]

I don't think most anti-choice folks actually believe in states' rights, I think it's just a rhetorical position they take to defend their non-compliance with the standard of Roe or their joy in its erosion. They'd love to pass a national ban if it felt achievable.

Blowing up Wickard v. Filburn is also an objective, and this can be seen as in line with that

[Bi_3]

A federal law would not, as far as I understand it, override state law.

how would a state law not be preempted if it’s less restrictive?

It would override less restrictive laws but allow states to impose more restrictive laws.

Sorry, yes, to be clear, and as far as I understand it, Graham's proposal would override the laws permitting abortions at later stages in New York but would not stop Mississippi from imposing a near total ban. Which is why I don't really understand Bi_3's argument--this would further restrict abortion rights in blue states, it would not create some kind of national middle ground framework.

Sorry, my post was very unclear. I meant a middle ground for the red team where they take pressure off vulnerable candidates so they can simultaneously claim a victory against abortion and yet allow it in case where the voting public overwhelmingly wants it legal and would vote red if not for the total bans. Hypocritical sleight-of-hand.

[Rob]

Chris H_2, I believe you’re a lawyer ? I just want to know, not just from you, but if life begins at conception is there ever justification for an abortion? Why would a rape be a a justification? Seems to be that unless the life of the mother was in jeopardy (forcing a choice) it’s all off the table. The pro life side seems to embrace a personhood type argument from conception but still lacks the political support.

[Bi_3]

Chris H_2, I believe you’re a lawyer ? I just want to know, not just from you, but if life begins at conception is there ever justification for an abortion? Why would a rape be a a justification? Seems to be that unless the life of the mother was in jeopardy (forcing a choice) it’s all off the table. The pro life side seems to embrace a personhood type argument from conception but still lacks the political support.

Some interesting discussion around this here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philippa-foot/

Mickey/McP/Orpheus(if he still reads this fourm) might have better links.

[4/5]

I don't think most anti-choice folks actually believe in states' rights, I think it's just a rhetorical position they take to defend their non-compliance with the standard of Roe or their joy in its erosion. They'd love to pass a national ban if it felt achievable.

I think this is right. There are obviously some people who are both pro-life and actually believe in states' rights but I think that's a pretty small share. States' rights is more often just a rallying cry when somebody opposes a particular federal policy. To be a true states' rightser I think you have to oppose federal legislation that you happen to agree with and support the rights of states to make policies you disagree with. Obviously, those people exist and simple_schoolboy may very well be one but I agree that ultimately a much larger swath of the pro-life crowd would happily embrace a federal abortion ban without blinking.

[BurtReynolds]

Most people want control over everyone through continental or global dominance, it's true.

[spike]

Control is an illusion.

[Chris_H_2]

Chris H_2, I believe you’re a lawyer ? I just want to know, not just from you, but if life begins at conception is there ever justification for an abortion? Why would a rape be a a justification? Seems to be that unless the life of the mother was in jeopardy (forcing a choice) it’s all off the table. The pro life side seems to embrace a personhood type argument from conception but still lacks the political support.

i think this is more of a philosophical/moral question than legal though, right?

[Mickey]

I don't think most anti-choice folks actually believe in states' rights, I think it's just a rhetorical position they take to defend their non-compliance with the standard of Roe or their joy in its erosion. They'd love to pass a national ban if it felt achievable.

I think this is right. There are obviously some people who are both pro-life and actually believe in states' rights but I think that's a pretty small share. States' rights is more often just a rallying cry when somebody opposes a particular federal policy. To be a true states' rightser I think you have to oppose federal legislation that you happen to agree with and support the rights of states to make policies you disagree with. Obviously, those people exist and simple_schoolboy may very well be one but I agree that ultimately a much larger swath of the pro-life crowd would happily embrace a federal abortion ban without blinking.

In a great object lesson for this, my in-laws claimed to be against Roe on states' rights grounds but fervently support federal dog fighting legislation.

[Mickey]

Which is wild because dog fighting is arguably a much more regionally-specific cultural practice tied to communally-produced notions of rights than abortion is.