Your belief is incorrect. You should read the decision, I suggest. It's a purely judicial matter.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pmBeg pardon. I should have said that the decision allows individual States to declare or to have declared abortions to be unlawful.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:41 amI'm afraid it's clear you're not understanding what's happened at all. Your "facts" are just wrong, and wrong in ways you could confirm yourself, if you went and looked.
The R v. W. decision does not make abortions criminal. It doesn't even deny that every state in the union can have unrestricted abortions. What this decision says, is that when the court formerly ruled on R v. W., back in 1973, it was overreaching and outside the constitution entirely. This decisin says, the court screwed up, and it's time to set things in right order again.
It's not actually a decision about abortion per se, at all.
Consequently, it's a decision purely about JURISDICTION. Nothing more. Nothing else.
All it says is that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction to dictate to states what their choice about abortion must be. It says that that question has to be settled at the state level.
And that's all it says.
So we have to understand this situation correctly. Abortion has not been "overturned," as Gary's headline would induce us to imagine. And it certainly has not been "criminalized," as you suggest. All it is, is a decision that states must decide. Period. No more, no less.
Let's keep the discussion sane.
I haven’t read the decision, but I believe it is aimed specifically at abortions with a more generalized application to the roles of SCOTUS, the federal government and the state governments.
Now, the panic from the Left is interesting. It signals that they just can't stand the idea of non-centralized power in these issues. They know darn well that states like Cali and New York will keep aborting children right up to post-birth. So the actual threat of non-existence of abortions is not what they're mad about; they're mad that not everybody is going to be forced to play things their way. They're mad at the idea that there could be diversity of opinion and diversity of law among diverse states. They hate that people will have the choice to live in states that do not subsidize promiscious murder with their taxes, or to be forced to approve of it in all locales.
Let 'em rage, I say. They're totalitarians and baby killers. If they're mad, that's good: it means we're doing the right thing.