Of course they do. They believe (rightly or wrongly) that they will be the ones who get to define what "disinformation" is, either by controlling the government directly or pulling the strings via the deep state.
A federal abortion ban would require being passed in the Senate and the House. The SC ruling reversing RvW was specifically because it hadn't been passed through the legislature. The court doesn't have the power to make law, only to interpret it.
I don't know that that's exactly true, I'd want to read the decision in detail. But for the sake of argument, lets assume it is. Abortion, like murder, doesn't fall within federal jurisdiction in the first place unless it's a crime on federal property or on federal land.
The problem with RvW that got it overturned wasn't about federal jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction covers anything and everything thanks to loopholes like the interstate commerce clause. What got it overturned was that it was never passed as a law in the first place.
Any state can ban it or allow it as they see fit. The federal government could do the same.
Abortion is legal if the mother's life is in jeopardy in all 50 states and no one has made any utterance to change that.
A federal abortion ban would require the overturning of the supreme court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.
It's all dishonest retardation with no basis in reality.
And are the same people who want to make "disinformation" illegal.
Of course they do. They believe (rightly or wrongly) that they will be the ones who get to define what "disinformation" is, either by controlling the government directly or pulling the strings via the deep state.
Particularly that malinformation. Pesky truth! Always getting in the way.
So it will be extra effective on women
That should suggest that you have a moral obligation to protect the women you love from it.
No decision needs to be overturned.
A federal abortion ban would require being passed in the Senate and the House. The SC ruling reversing RvW was specifically because it hadn't been passed through the legislature. The court doesn't have the power to make law, only to interpret it.
I don't know that that's exactly true, I'd want to read the decision in detail. But for the sake of argument, lets assume it is. Abortion, like murder, doesn't fall within federal jurisdiction in the first place unless it's a crime on federal property or on federal land.
The problem with RvW that got it overturned wasn't about federal jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction covers anything and everything thanks to loopholes like the interstate commerce clause. What got it overturned was that it was never passed as a law in the first place.
Any state can ban it or allow it as they see fit. The federal government could do the same.
The interstate commerce clause is broad, but I still think it would be a hell of a challenge to claim federal regulation on it in the first place.