It would be more permanent than a law that could be overturned by both the courts AND the other team gaining enough of a majority to do so.
I don't believe there will be another constitutional amendment until after the next civil war. Our government is disfunctional and politicians are more focused on ginning up outrage to get their base to the polls than on doing anything to make America better.
Hate to admit it, but it’s looking more and more likely. Wish both sides could turn up the heat on the media, all media, and stop with divisive rhetoric.
That is possible, but the mechanism does exist. If all the people that are so upset about this latest SC ruling are correct that the overwhelming majority of Americans support abortion, it should be possible. Considering that if that outrage converts to votes then those favoring restrictions on abortion should find themselves office-less in the near future. I just can't see a civil war coalescing around this (or any other current) issue.
Sadly, though, this is what sells and the media is all about making a buck. This team roots for this channel and that team roots for that channel.
No one is having the government control what someone does to their bodies. The government is being asked to protect the most innocent. The life being killed is not the mother. It is separate. 23 chromosomes from the mother. 23 chromosomes from the father. It’s own DNA separate from the mother and father.
For those that are unaware of Margaret Sanger’s intentions with Planned Parenthood, you may want to read this article from the USA Today. It will enlighten you on what her end goal was. Margaret Sanger was a racist eugenics advocate who shouldn't be honored
It effectively becomes separate when it is capable of living outside of the womb. Although I do not particularly like the analogy, a fetus prior to viability meets the definition of parasite, specifically " an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients".
Just my casual observation, but you are failing to recognize your own hypocrisy and when being called on it, playing the victim card. All this while vociferously criticizing and labeling people whose political beliefs differ from your own. To your credit, you appear to be looking inward when suggesting that people are attempting to make you look bad; you're just doing so with a particular filter which is preventing you from seeing the truth that you fear. And to be clear, I'm not labeling you racist. To a certain extent, I agree with your opinion on the matter. I'm simply stating that your stance here is flawed.
Sanger supported eugenics at a time when it was a commonly accepted theory although virtually all of us would be find it repugnant today. What Margaret Sanger Really Said About Eugenics and Race I would also add that the link in post for @Jeremy14 is to an opinion column from a writer with a strong bias against the mission of Planned Parenthood.
Great post. Might some of the early liberal negative legal reactions about Roe come from that some legal eagles believe that Roe should been decided under one of the other frameworks you outline?
Not really. The article looked at Margaret Sanger's legacy in its entirety not just a small portion of her life taken out of context.
I’m a big boy and I don’t mind a little introspection. Problem is, it’s like arguing with my wife….it’s hard for either side to give an inch. When both sides are at fault. Lots of pride and too little kindness. Oh well.
If life begins at conception, can you articulate why these frozen embryos don't count as innocent lives?
The way I remember it, the people are not involved, just the state legislatures or Congress. Two thirds are impossible today - that is, as with meaningful gun control, the will of the people does not matter. I agree there probably won't be a civil war. However, there will be if the GOP and its state legislatures continue its efforts to make America a one-party state, which is effectively a dictatorship. I would feel precisely the same way were it democrats undertaking such efforts. What surprises me is the way the right has demonized liberals.* Throughout our history, both parties have contributed to this diverse country's greatness. When it comes to running a country, there is no single right way, there is no one truth. The two-party system has historically allowed two opposing viewpoints about the right way, about the truth, to be debated and consensus reached. Yes, there have been bitter disagreements, even fights in Congress, but the ship of state has generally stayed within the channel of reasonableness. Regardless of what you think about Trump's policies, this rancor and divisiveness began with him, and he encouraged it. * Speaking for myself only, I have not demonized conservatives. In fact, I've repeatedly emphasized their importance to the democratic process. My beef has been with Trump. I consider him a thoroughly degenerate human being who has no business running this country no matter what his policies might be.
Why is it that those who throw out inflammatory accusations usually fail to respond to reasonable questions politely posed?
