What strikes me is that the SCOTUS has NOT outlawed abortion; not in the least.
If abortion is as favored by the people as its backers claim, it should be no problem to restore its availability state by state, thanks to legislatures and governors who are elected by those same people!
And the SCOTUS will not intervene or interfere . . . . not in the least.
But that flies in the face of human nature. It is far easier to do wrong when everyone around you is doing the same. It is much more difficult to ignore “Thou Shall NOT Kill” when there are states still upholding that time honored Commandment. Nobody wants to be reminded they are evil.
The DA’s entire job is to enforce the law. Not create laws. But you are right that big cities tend to be more liberal, meaning they tend to simply ignore rules they find inconvenient. That doesn’t make it right, it’s the opposite of right.
The problem is that New Yorkers cannot vote in South Dakota. These people aren’t just insistent on allowing it in their own state, they’re hellbent on it being allowed in every state.
I don’t see Republicans having a filibuster proof majority in the senate anytime soon.
Even if they did, I don’t think they would ban abortion. It’s a political loser for a large number of republicans in swing districts.
If they did, democrats would sue in a left leaning federal court to put a stay on the law while it winds its way through court - it would never go into effect because
Roberts and Kavanaugh would not be on board with a federal law banning abortion. So it would be overturned 5-4 at least.
The polls I have seen show that the views of the American people’s views on abortion are nuanced. Most people grudgingly say that abortion should be allowed in the first trimester but they are strongly opposed by a large majority to later abortions.
The Supreme Court left it to the states and I think that is correct. However if radicals like the Democrat dominated California legislature pass laws that allow infanticide up to one month after birth, then they will have to step in.
California Passes Bill With Loophole That Permits Infanticide
Agreed. Which is why an outright “ban” would be a political loser.
I’m reading the text of the bill and it is quite unsettling. I’m not a huge fan of Tim Pool and the liberties he takes on things he doesn’t understand, but the person that wrote this article actually does a good job explaining how this bill, where the goal is to not punish mothers whose just-born babies die because of their drug use, may actually allow, in some circumstances, a mother to birth her baby and leave it to die and then not be charged criminally.
“Unjust” is highly subjective. Ignoring laws you don’t agree with simply isn’t how a society works. If the majority of the electorate really does believe it is unjust, then you work towards changing the law, not unilaterally decide to ignore it.
I think it’s exactly how a society works. Justice isn’t only about following the law, it’s also about being just. Enforcers of the law at every level have plenty of wiggle room: cops decide whether to take someone in or let them walk, DAs decide whether to prosecute cases and which charges to bring, Judges decide sentencing, etc.
The majority of a municipal electorate is a minority of the state electorate – they can’t change state law. But you know that.
It’s so weird. The left is freaking out that the right finally gets a chance to enact real abortion laws. This is literally step 1 of ending abortion. Prior to Dobbs, there was no legal way to ban abortion. But there was no impediment to a legal regime allowing abortion up until birth. The left won by default. Thanks to 7 unelected lawyers.
Now that there is actually an even playing field, the left is freaking out and wants to take the ball and go home. The right has been following the rules for 50 years and playing football without being able to use our hands (and we’re losing by 50 million). You’re afraid that your score of 600,000 per year is gonna go down maybe 100,000 (if we’re lucky)?
How about instead of acting like the ref’s just handed us the win, you admit that all the refs just did was allow us to do the same thing you guys should have (but for some reason didn’t) do for the past 50 years. You guys write your abortion on demand laws, we’ll write our bans, and the big sort will continue.
I don’t get what the issue is. I literally have the opinion that abortion stops a beating heart, but I know that it will be at least another 50 years (if ever) until abortion will be illegal in New York, New Jersey, California, Oregon, Seattle, Illinois, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, and Hawaii. But I’m not advocating we sneakily elect sheriffs that will stand outside abortion clinics with rifles in their hands scaring women from going in. If it is “just” to not enforce the laws passed by a state’s elected representatives because “abortion is a right,” it is equally as “just” to physically stop women from obtaining abortions in states where the electorate is unwilling to protect the lives of unborn babies.
Or
You can admit that what happened with Dobbs isn’t unprecedented and doesn’t require justifying extra legal activities. It just means both sides now get to convince people through the normal democratic process of what laws their societies should enact - be it abortion up to the point of birth, no abortion at all, or anywhere in between.
That’s not true. I don’t know for how many years they followed the rules, but states have been adding all kinds of restrictions and making it nearly impossible to operate abortion clinics for many years.
Also “they” have been protesting near abortion clinics and harassing anyone who went in. Following the rules my butt.
No, society doesnt work by people simply deciding to ignore the laws they dont like.
Ok, yes, that happens all the time, but society imposes punishments on such people for robbing banks, murder, etc. It’s the lack of consequences for ignoring the law that makes this a problem.
A DA decides to prosecute cases based on their confidence of securing a conviction. Deciding to prosecute or not based on their own personal feelings about the particular law involved is the DA hijacking the authority of the legislature. A cop using discretion when writing (or not writing) a speeding ticket is the norm; a cop who refuses write any speeding tickets because he thinks that law is stupid will quickly be fired.
Yet you just said that a majority of the electorate. If there is a majority, then change the law. If it’s really a minority, then those who dont follow the law are criminals.
Adding restrictions like requiring free ultrasounds - oooh how restrictive. You’re conveniently leaving out the part of the process where we had to fight for those restrictions all the way to the supreme court - if we were lucky. most never went into effect or were struck down by a lower court and were never even taken up by the supreme court. how is that not following the rules?
so now protesting isn’t allowed? Also, now we’re not talking about the right in general. we’re talking about the fanatics. just like the people attacking pregnancy resource centers these past couple months don’t represent the left. so unless you are willing to admit they do, we can leave the extremists out of it and just talk about the advocates that are focusing on policy.
I was talking about the majority of the electorate that gets to elect the District Attorney. The DA is elected by the district, not by the whole state. The state elects the AG.
Adding anything that isn’t medically necessary is, in a way, restrictive. But I was really talking about restrictions that do not apply to any other healthcare setting, like requiring the physician also be employed at a nearby hospital, or dictating the widths of the hallways or whatever. Not sure if these were ever shut down or if they went to the higher courts, but they did cause many clinics to close their doors, effectively restricting access to not only abortion, but all family planning and prenatal care.
You didnt have any problem with it when it was the Federal government preventing the states from enacting the laws they wanted… And it wasnt even an enacted Federal law preventing it.
A majority of the electorate in the glitch99 household believed it is essential to shoot anyone wearing green shoes. So you are claiming we are free to, nay entitled to, follow our beliefs without consequence, or would you agree that we are still bound by state laws on the matter regardless of the local electorate’s beliefs?
When you are part of a whole, you are bound to the decisions of the whole. Yes, it is a rather ridiculous implication, but I havent seen any US city petition for it’s own statehood or status separate from the state it’s located in - that’s how you properly exempt yourself from a higher decision/law. But short of that, the only legitimate solution is to move to a city located in a state that better embraces your own desires.
I’m sure that at least in some states, the state constitution leaves room for the argument that this should be a local issue outside the authority of the state government. But you wont see that argument being made, because, once again, they’re hellbent on it being allowed everywhere whether the locals want it or not.
I can see how this might be an issue with trigger laws on the books and the unexpected outcome for a year or so, but if women really want this, they’re more than half the population - surely they can just vote for that issue in the next state / local election and get back their right to choose.