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?
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?