Lindsey "It's Ma'am" Graham shows his loyalties again
(nitter.poast.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (33)
sorted by:
How would a constitutional amendment banning abortion welcome abortion back in?
He's built up a complicated hypothetical.
Supposedly a law made to ban abortion would be found unconstitutional because of the same Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v Wade.
The proposal then is to amend the constitution to allow the abortion ban.
He's suggesting that the proposed amendment would overturn that ruling that originally overturned Roe v Wade, apparently making abortion legal again.
Which is ridiculous, because if there's enough political support to ratify a law saying the federal government can make laws about abortion, with the clear intent of passing a ban right after, then they could simply ratify an amendment banning it. Or maybe he doesn't understand that the SC ruled that the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over abortion?
Because it wouldn't be a constitutional ban on abortion. It would be a constitutional amendment to regulate abortion at the federal level.
That's just a ban with more steps and additional stupid risks. If they could do that, they could simply ratify an amendment banning it and avoid the risk.
Those risks are the point.
None of the Republican establishment calling for an abortion ban have any interest in banning abortion. They want to ratify federal abortion regulations to make sure it stays a federal issue to argue about, and probably to also just kill kids because they don't genuinely oppose abortion anyway.