Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Reveals
By: Alison Durkee (Forbes)
So much for the Republican lie that abortion should be a decision left to the states.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Topline
The fight over abortion restrictions could soon go from statehouses to Capitol Hill, as the Washington Postreports Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion rights activists are working to enact a federal abortion ban if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this summer as expected and the GOP regains control of Congress.
Women rights activists march to the U.S. Capitol during the annual Womens March October 2, 2021 in ... [+] Washington, DC.
Key Facts
Republican senators have met to discuss legislation that would ban abortion nationwide, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told the Post, and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) would reportedly likely introduce the bill.
Anti-abortion groups like the Susan B. Anthony List are working to garner support for the legislation, and have met with Republican contenders for the 2024 presidential nomination about such a ban, including former President Donald Trump.
"Most of" the potential candidates support the ban and would make it a "centerpiece" of their campaign, Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser told the Post.
A federal abortion ban could restrict the procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, based on current proposals, with anti-abortion advocates believing a 15-week ban wouldn't go far enough.
While many states are already taking steps to ban abortion—even before the Supreme Court rules—a federal law would stop those seeking abortions from being able to obtain one by traveling out of state, and overrule legislation in Democratic-led states that enshrines the right to the procedure.
Crucial Quote
A coalition of anti-abortion groups led by Students for Life Action wrote to every GOP lawmaker in Congress Monday, calling this a "pivotal moment in which almost anything is possible" when it comes to abortion restrictions. "We ask you to join us in ensuring that the strongest measures possible are employed" to ban abortions, the letter reads.
Chief Critic
"By [Republicans] saying out loud that their goal is to push a nationwide abortion ban, it makes it clear that we have to elect more pro-reproductive health champions on the national level and in the states," Planned Parenthood Action Fund executive director Kelley Robinson told the Post, calling the federal proposal "terrifying."
Big Number
60%. That's the approximate share of Americans who oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned, according to multiple recent polls. Polling has consistently shown a majority of Americans support legal access to abortion, though higher shares are willing to back restrictions on the procedure later into a pregnancy.
What To Watch For
Whether Republicans will get the chance to take action. The Supreme Court is now deliberating in a case on Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, which will broadly consider whether states can restrict abortion. A ruling is expected by late June, when the court's term wraps up, though issuing decisions could stretch into early July. Justices signaled during oral arguments that they're likely to side with Mississippi, but it still remains unclear whether they'll narrowly uphold the 15-week ban or go further and overturn Roe v. Wade entirely. Republicans' fate will then depend on the midterm elections in November, where the GOP stands a chance to take back the House and Senate.
What We Don't Know
Whether a federal abortion ban could actually be enacted, as even if Republicans gain control of Congress, they still face long odds. An abortion ban would need 60 votes to pass the Senate, which remains unlikely, as the Post notes even some GOP lawmakers could vote against the ban. Even if it passes, any legislation would likely be subject to legal challenges.
Key Background
The potential federal ban comes as Republican-led states have become increasingly emboldened to take action against abortion as the Supreme Court decision looms. States enacted more than 100 abortion restrictions in 2021 alone, according to the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute, with another 33 so far enacted in 2022 as of April 15. Texas imposed the most severe restrictions in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 when its six-week abortion ban took effect in September, which courts have so far allowed to stand. Idaho and Oklahoma have already followed Texas by passing similar bans of their own, in addition to a separate Oklahoma ban that makes performing an abortion a felony. Idaho's measure has been blocked in court, however, as has a law in Kentucky that effectively banned all abortions in the state.
Tags
Who is online
94 visitors
The Anti-Roe-publican Party will never stop until they have relegated woman to total second class citizenship.
the constitution provides a remedy for domestic terrorists that believe they can legislate away equal rights.
Not when minorities can block actions of the majorities.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Today, Roe v Wade.
Tomorrow, same sex marriage, birth control, women's right to vote, equal rights to minorities.
Republicans have so many rights to remove, and so little time to do it.
Where on earth did you come up with this BS.
[deleted]
It's Psaki claiming the Dobbs case will allow to segregate straight and gay kids in schools. When pressed for anyone advocating for that she had no response. But it sounds scary.
If you don't think those issues are on the reactionary party's hit list, you are badly misinformed.
[deleted]
They're all next on the chopping block . . . gay marriage, interracial marriage, contraception. . .
“It's Psaki…”
Agree or disagree, at the very least this administration has the balls to hold a daily briefing. Been a minute…
Sure, but what kind of balls does it take to face an adoring crowd and one skeptical questioner?
Ditto
Hey what can you say if what you SAY makes good sense, answers the questions, and deals with the issues? Sometimes, a 'skeptic' is just committed to the act of 'gunning for' the press secretary. Now comes Karine Jean-Pierre, the new WH press secretary, I am pretty sure 'skeptics' plan to 'lighti her up' just to see if she has the fortitude-watch for forthcoming 'fireworks'!
Karine Jean-Pierre.
I wonder how today's gqp and alleged conservatives will smear this openly gay woman?
Just watch: the narrative on the right with Karine Jean-Pierre, new press secretary, will go along the lines "angry black woman" who can't be talked to because of bravado! The persistent and ridiculous 'rounds' of questions, notwithstanding.
See @1.2.11. We're on the same wave-length. They will steer clear of 'the gay" -maybe not Tucker Carlson or Laura Ingraham though. The 'angrrrrrrrrrrrrry black woman" narrative is open for business, however. Remember how conservatives hoped to 'damage' President Obama. They set him up with private meeting, frustrated him during the meetings, and whether he took the bait or not, came out and talked about him yelling and railing against them.
horribly, ... after they get done jerking themselves off over the announcement of her new WH job.
[deleted]
He always does!
Absolutely, very consistently.
That's funny since Alito said just the opposite. Its a States Rights issue, talk to your State Representatives about your concerns. If you live in a Republican State run for office and change the law. If this is as popular as many of you are saying, should be a piece of cake.
Alito is a fraud. During his confirmation hearing he said: "Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court... it has been on the books for a long time... It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades."
You're conveniently Ignoring the gerrymandering and severe restrictions on voting being imposed by Republicans so that they can maintain their status as the majority with only minority support.
lito is a fraud.
Sotomayor is a fraud too, then.
Or, let me guess, "hardcore reactionaries" are held to a different standard when testifying about precedent than saintly progressives.
No, she's not.
Lol..
[deleted]
What severe restrictions, that there's not a "voting season", a drop box on every corner, never having to prove who you are to vote.
I'm a voter from colorado, a secured vote by mail state, and your misinformed claim is complete bullshit
Those who do not know what they are talking about....make shit up
What happened to the argument that states should choose? Wouldn’t any such national ban be instantly unconstitutional?
That was a phony argument from day one.
The constitutionality of any given law is ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. Now that the Court is stacked with hard-core reactionary activists, you can be certain that they would not find a national ban to be unconstitutional.
That would require the belief that the anti choice folks were interested in anything other than sending women back to their “proper place”.
There is no argument, the states should choose. I don't understand why everyone if having a heart attack.
It's bullshit that the states should choose. There's already 26 states with strict restrictions. That would be complete chaos IMHO.
You keep telling us there's overwhelming support for abortion why is it a problem.
Goose, because some states are little 'thief-doms' wanting life to mirror their values and not the values of a nation. More precisely, certain states put on a grand show about Americana, national jingoism, et ceteras and then proceed to legislate their specific values in to law, and if not bad enough, they go further to constrain or remove rights and privileges of those paying citizens they don't want to have them through social engineering. You know this, and if you do not you should know it.
It is a problem, because a small vocal minority won't not 'buzzing' the throttles of power with their demands for injustices! If a conservative don't want an abortion-don't have one! And let liberals have the diversity they want with their bodies under law!
Because government is not demographically representative of the people, and does not accurately represent their opinions.
cool. another civil war over states rights. fortunately this time we know where all the instigators clubhouses are and what day they'll be there.
They're such morons. Rick Perry, when he texted the #45's incited domestic terrorist mob of insurrectionists on 1/6/21 - he signed off with his signature
Updated 5:13 PM ET, Mon April 25, 2022
At the time, Perry's team flatly denied that he was the sender of those texts to Meadows. Here's the specific denial: "A spokesman for Perry told CNN that the former Energy Secretary denies being the author of the text." No explanation was offered for why the number used in the text was associated with Perry.
I haven't been telling you anything. What's the point?
I should know it but I don't understand what you are trying to say, Social engineering?
I’m not. I’m pointing out the obvious contradiction of simultaneously saying that it’s a state’s rights matter while also calling for a national law.
Even if such a ban were Constitutional ( I doubt it would be) , as of now it would require 60 Senators, the House and the President to agree to it.
Of course, Democrats are obsessed with getting ride of the filibuster to make it easier to pass such a ban.
Oh please do explain that ridiculous comment.
[deleted]
So obsessed they haven’t done it?
o obsessed they haven’t done
96% of them tried to. A Senator was censored for refusing to do so. Or has that been forgotten already?
And dumb as they are, will probably try again and then be surprised when Republicans use it against them a few years down the road.
What is or is not constitutional will, for the time being, be decided by the reactionaries on the Supreme Court with the sole intent of advancing a partisan agenda and without regard to precedent or the actual language of the Constitution. It's unimaginable that they would declare it unconstitutional.
Where in the Constitution does it say there is a right to get an abortion? Please be specific and cute the relevant passage.
Your conception of constitutional law is deficient.
Where in the Constitution does it say there is a right to vote or the right to marry and have children? Where in the Constitution does it mention freedom of association, federalism, separation of power, check and balances? Where in the Constitution does it recognize the Marines or the Air Force? Answer: Nowhere. They are not in the Constitution.
Abortion and the other rights I listed are referred to as "non-enumerated rights", i.e., they are not mentioned in the Constitution. However, in the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
As the link below demonstrates, the question of "Where in the Constitution does it say there is a right to get an abortion?", is merely a "gotcha question" employed by conservatives to pretend that their unsupported "textualism" argument holds water. It doesn't.
It's so refreshing to read a cogent, well-articulated and fact based argument.
Thanks, Dulay.
Lol....Not a single justice has ever held that the right to an abortion is an unenumerated right located the Ninth Amendment.
[deleted]
Justice Blackmun's opinion suggests otherwise.
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy." Roe, 410 U.S. at 153
[deleted] very few of our rights are actually spelled out in the constitution. If you wanna go by what the costitution literally lays out then we don’t have very many rights at all. Most of our rights derive from interpretations of the US Constitution, not ours literal wording.
Only people active in the National Guard would have guns as the 2nd clearly spells out arms only for a well maintained militia. Textualism by populists is as much a joke/red herring as saving babies by banning abortion is.
I thought you were a lawyer? That's dicta pointing out what the Trial Court held. You really don't understand that?
I'm not even a lawyer and know that Roe holds the right resides in the 14th Amendment and that was confirmed in Casey. It's the most basic information that can be found just about anywhere.
IF you really need help understanding that, I'll be happy to provide it, but I suspect you know that your claim is bullshit and just threw out chum to feed the ignorant.
It's dicta, which is not part of the precedential holding of the Supreme Court. However, you asserted that the Ninth Amendment has never been the basis for a ruling regarding abortion, which is not true. My comment merely pointed out that Blackmun acknowledged it had.
I said "Not a single justice has ever held that the right to an abortion is an unenumerated right located the Ninth Amendment."
I was referring to the Supreme Court. District Court judges in Texas are not justices.
They know this. They live it out daily. They pretend to not understand what the constitution says about insurrection? Who? What? We don't see 'no' insurrection? When is it supposed to have happened?
These conservatives are insincere and are 'jokes' but for the power they wield in the states.
Your 'reply' does not take away from Gsquared reply to Arkpdx. He responded to words, ideas, and implications in and derived from the Constitution
Basically, Ginsburg is bemoaning the support from the states (which was happening gradually) being 'dissolved' by Roe vs Wade (1973) affirmative opinion.
The way I read it, she suggested a ruling would have been longer lasting if it had been based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, gender equality rather than the right to privacy. She saw Roe as giving opponents a target to aim at.
I think that Alito quoted his close friend, RBG, twice in his draft opinion.
It is interesting to see what Alito said in his appearance before Congress in 2005 during his confirmation hearing, it was quite different than his latest view.
Were I in Congress I'd be calling for immediate hearings with these individual justices in front of the Senate and possible impeachment for lying to Congress.
Lol. Sotomayor quaking in her boots.
Don't look at what she said about Heller or you'll have to call for her impeachment, if you think Alito lied and can be impeached for his testimony.
If you actually look at what Alito and others have testified to, you'd realize it's a lie to claim they promised to uphold Roe.
Go play your partisan reindeer games elsewhere. I don't give a good damned bit WHO lied - if they get pulled in front of the Senate committee and it's found then GOOD FUCKING BYE! The whole system needs an enema.
Lol. I'm not the one playing "partisan games." You are the one calling for conservatives, and only conservatives, to face impeachment over a standard that would necessitate liberal justices being impeached as well. .
But by all means, show me where any justice you want to impeach promised the Senate to uphold Roe.
Nope. Now go troll elsewhere.
[deleted]
I wonder how many of these anti-choice republicans have an aborted skeleton in their closets?
"I wonder how many of these anti-choice republicans have an aborted skeleton in their closets?"
Probably EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. THEM.
anonymous needs to hack planned parenthood and release the names of any/all conservatives that have utilized their services.
Conservatives would see that as a huge violation of privacy because it could hurt Republicans, but when Democrat servers are hacked by an enemy foreign government and released during a Presidential campaign it's welcomed by conservatives with open arms. So if Democrats are hacked and their personal embarrassing histories are leaked that's a great thing and conservatives only want to focus on the embarrassing personal histories, but if Republicans are hacked and their personal embarrassing histories are leaked they only want to focus on the leakers as evil criminals. Conservative hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.
political irony is completely lost on the furry knuckle demographic...
So much for states' rights. Funny how that becomes unimportant while they turn women into second class citizens.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't understand your comment. Can you elaborate on how returning the question of abortion to the states is not following / believing in states rights? I don't see this action as SCOTUS turning women into second class citizens, I see it as the SCOTUS correcting an action that both sides have called judicial over-reach and returning the question to the elected officials of the states so that the states can determine the action. That to me is truly democracy in action. If the elected officials in the state do not follow the wishes of the citizens that is correctable at the next election, so democracy.
Granted I do not like the idea of returning to the 60's on this issue. I would much rather that Congress stop playing the coward and end their partisan games and find a solution to this issue and codify the issue nationally. Politics is the art of compromise so why can't they find something that allows both sides to gain. It does seem to me that Congress would rather leave the issue unsolved so that they can continue to use it as a cudgel for their partisan bullshit.
The article is about more than overturning Roe v Wade. That is returning it to states' rights. The article is also about bills that are going to be introduced to outlaw abortion nationwide. Right here:
So that is why I said:
Your comment makes no sense. The decision is now a state issue and they have the right to deal with it through the people the state elects.
gee, I wonder which states will be bringing back other forms of slavery?
My thoughts exactly.
Please read this comment: 8.2.1
Ahhhh, back to the "good" old days where white men were superior (in their own minds), women were passed like a torch from her father to her husband, women stayed home and made a home and babies, gays were in the closet (if they had to exist at all), families went to church every Sunday (or they were deemed bad), boys taught all sorts of thing in school, girls focused on home ec & finding a suitable spouse, higher education only for the wealthy & VOILA - uneducated masses that can be manipulated into believing Jesus was a white guy with blond hair & blue eyes.
And if hubby's eye turned to another gal, he had you committed to some hovel for the insane.
Yep....or left you with the kids with no way to support yourself.
Once you married, if it started with a 'p', purse, property, pussy ... it was his.
And any and all of us would be FOOLS to let conservatives get away with doing it again. We are out from under the thumb and control of those FOOLS and we better fight to stay out from under them-no matter what it takes. These conservatives are OUT OF THEY EVER-LOVING minds.
Of course they will. The more they can populate America with brain-damaged, sub-human and/or intellectually challenged voters resulting from insemination by rapists, deranged, diseased and/or incestuous fathers the more Republican votes will be cast.
[deleted]
If I were in a position to do so I would invite the Republican lawmakers and the conservative SCOTUS justices to spend a day caring for the monster babies that are cared for in the top floor ward of Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children. They don't have to worry about getting attached to them, they'll die very quickly anyway. When I was Chief Barker (president) of Variety Club of Ontario, an organizaton that provides support for physically, mentally and socially disadvantaged children we supported that hospital and I was given a tour of the ward, and had to run to the washroom immediately afterwards.
So women of the U.S., take a peek below at how much weight you liberally carry with republicans and conservatives: Not damn much whatsoever on this issue of body autonomy .
S-P-E-L-L I-T O-U-T.
Let's take a 'long' look at how dirty ' dogs ' can be:
Compare that perspective on women to the republican response to twice-impeached Donald J. Trump:
Women, your privacy is the UNCONSTITUTIONAL thing which needs McConnell's "republicans" attention; these "republicans" PASSED on removing the insurrectionist -in-chief!
Any questions?
Happy Mother's Day to all our mothers!