[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

We ARE divided by state lines. We are individual states, given the Constitutional right to make laws that can be enforced in our individual states. If you wish to call it "divided" so be it. Thank goodness for diversity, huh?

The states can pass laws, DUH. They can n to pass laws that are in opposition to Federal Laws. If there is no Federal Law and nothing in the constitution that the state law would violate, then the state can. pass what it wants.

I expect eventually we will see a Federal law codifying a woman's right to an abortion - soon.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

Rape and murder have also been around forever. Should they therefore be legal? Abortion has not been LEGAL forever, only the last 50 years.

Rape and murder are not the subject in question.
Abortion has been around for as long as humans. It isn't something new. Even in the wild animals will abort when there is need or when certain conditions arise that might make it difficult for the mother to feed or protect her soon to be newborn. Women don't make this decision lightly. It is trying to decide between two undesirable options and should never be trivialized. Only the mother to be should have the right to make the ultimate decision. Once made, she is going to need all the love and support family and friends can give. Either way, her life will be changed forevermore.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Actually you are mostly wrong.

Many states will now pass laws allowing abortions so people who want them can just take a ride to one of those states and have her abortion.

That was ssssssooooooo 222222222 EASY!........... Easy peasy, slightly greasy! Feel the breezy!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

You're kidding, right?

Humor drives the point home!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

We ARE divided by state lines. We are individual states, given the Constitutional right to make laws that can be enforced in our individual states. If you wish to call it "divided" so be it. Thank goodness for diversity, huh?

States' diversity would be a good thing........UP TO A POINT. Like salt is good, but too much salt is...yuck!
.........Think about TOO much diversity playing a role in 1861.

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

The states can pass laws, DUH. They can n to pass laws that are in opposition to Federal Laws. If there is no Federal Law and nothing in the constitution that the state law would violate, then the state can. pass what it wants.

The states can also pass laws (Cannabis sales) that violates Federal Law. The Feds may not choose to enforce some laws.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by RVJim

Not so easy for every one to travel to another state or country. The wealthy will continue to travel to other states or Canada to obtain the services they desire BUT the poor, uneducated and unsupported will not. This is just another one of many disadvantages that will drive the gulf between the haves and have-nots. The wealthy will always find a way.

I grew up in a very wealthy family. I remember my father saying on many occasions that he really didn't care too much what happened with regard to politics or legislation because he could always buy himself and his family out of any situation that we might find ourselves in. Although he said that many decades ago I think that mindset is very much true today.

Good post. And to piggyback.........today we have the US's GREATEST wealth disparity. And the MOST of ALL 1st world nations. Go US of A.........you are #1

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

It seems that there are a lot of folks that feel the gov MUST mandate their view and that individual states should not have the right to decide for themselves. This decision would give back the states' Constitutional right under the 10th Amendment. Certain states will continue to allow or regulate abortions and other states will ban abortions or also regulate strictly. Why some insist on mandating for ALL states just because they feel a certain way, is not being very liberal. The decision by the SC will not make abortions illegal. The decision will not limit states from banning abortions. It only means that it finds Roe being flawed and may decide to throw it back in the states purview. The SC is not going to ban abortions, period.
Just a bunch of hysteria over a nothing burger.

I see the situation 180 degrees opposite. Rejecting Roe v Wade will have deep and harmful effects on WOMEN and all of US society and LAWS! Not to mention the next 2 elections.

[jimjamuser]

The plastic coathangers of today may be easier on those needing an abortion than the old steel kind. I guess some would call that social progress after 55 years of Roe.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Good post. And to piggyback.........today we have the US's GREATEST wealth disparity. And the MOST of ALL 1st world nations. Go US of A.........you are #1

And the wealthiest "poor" people in the world

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

How on earth do you come away from this with an idea such as that? Do they use coat hangers to perform abortions today? I do not know of any car that won't make it to the state line on a tank of gasoline. If one state bans abortions, then go to another.

This one is ssssssooooo easy that it just about writes itself............not every poor person in the US owns or has access to an automobile. Maybe the good people of TV Land can arrange a loaner fleet for the NEEDY people?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Further instructions........please avoid the dark web at all costs. Use traditional sources like mainstream TV NEWS.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I feel so PROLIFIC, so pretty, so witty, and so wise. They can put PROLIFIC on my tombstone.

Is that an offer?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Not necessarily the right default position. And the Constitution is an OLD document written for an EARLIER time period. Time changes and laws change,

Which is why they put in a process to AMEND the Constitution...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

"or to the people" That means that we all should vote on this matter by referendum. And have 100% mandated voting every 2 years!

That's the 2nd time you've suggested this ridiculous notion...