politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Issue 1 covers so much more than just Abortion.
From the ballot:
This is a Freedom of Speech type amendment that centers around a person's reproductive rights. In that this amendment prohibits the Ohio State government from passing any law that restricts a person's reproductive rights except in special cases under strict scrutiny. So this goes way pass just abortion. Additionally, it grants doctors benefit of the doubt protections that would have strict scrutiny bars for the State to overcome, an incredibly high evidentiary bar for the State to overcome.
To just say this protects abortion is really missing the forest for the tree. Yeah, it protects abortion but additionally it protects everything related to reproductive rights (contraception, IVF, etc) and sets a massive barrier for the State to later meddle. This is a massive win for not those seeking abortion but for everyone who cheers reproductive protection and Government non-intervention in such matters.
Watch the Supreme Court challenge reproductive rights as free speech.
It doesn't say reproductive rights are free speech, it says they are as important as free speech.
Alito: “Were we not fucking clear enough the first time?”
It would be hard for the current Supreme Court to actually rule the protection of abortion rights since they leave it up to the states. Interestingly, Alito basically wrote in a slant that was very pro-state's rights to ban abortions specifically but it also does heavily imply to the point of being just shy of explicitly allowing the opposite but it must be what they meant or it doesn't make actual sense.
It would take a lot of logical gymnastics to essentially unwind and rewrite an opinion otherwise that doesn't go against their own majority opinion. Saying that, they did perform some Olympian gymnastics on not only Roe v. Wade but also Planned Parenthood v. Casey or in some instances, outright just say that they were plainly wrong.
They would essentially have to all but support a fundamentalist christo-fascist government (probably under the guise of what is in the best interest of the people, even against their own will) over even the Constitution itself and specifically the 10th Amendment and have a serious risk of impeachment unless he would opine that that it is the Congress' business to supersede that (Article VI), because that would also run counter to his written opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (that it is the state's prerogative to regulate abortion and not the federal government's), unless it was specific that he meant it all narrowed specifically to the 14 Amendment and further would run counter to his own weaker federal government stance.
It would be far more likely for the SC to find that a state and its people have the right to regulate abortion as they see fit if they were even to decide to hear such a case.
TLDR; it'd be extremely risky and difficult to essentially give the state's the right to regulate abortion but take away unless those laws are only to ban them.
Thanks for the breakdown. I had no idea what was at stake.
I'm sure conservatives will be absolutely thrilled to see the power of Big Government so strongly limited!
Right?