The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
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.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
A federal law would not, as far as I understand it, override state law.
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
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.
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
4/5 wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Mickey wrote:
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.
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:55 pm Posts: 13819 Location: An office full of assholes
Mickey wrote:
4/5 wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Mickey wrote:
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.
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
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.
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
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
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.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Fri January 04, 2013 1:46 am Posts: 2837 Location: Connecticut
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.
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.
Mickey/McP/Orpheus(if he still reads this fourm) might have better links.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
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.
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:55 pm Posts: 13819 Location: An office full of assholes
Rob wrote:
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?
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
4/5 wrote:
Mickey wrote:
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.
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
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.
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Users browsing this forum: 4/5, McParadigm and 56 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum