Dems struggle on Kavanaugh


The “nuance” is present in the meaning of the term. To overturn means to reverse, nullify, abolish, invalidate, or rescind.

It is surely true that the court could include other findings in a reexamination of abortion than just the reversal of Roe, and that might be an interesting discussion, but it is separate from the “overturning” of Roe.


I can not imagine she will either. But it definitely has her campaign in a tizzy. Note this editorial from the KC Star (an extension of her campaign staff):

That’s an awful lot of energy to spend making it look like she is undecided still.

On a more personal level when I contacted her office locally her staffer was very quick to volunteer the fact that she has voted for 3/5 of DT 's court appointments. Her staff know that this is important to voters here. His voice and his language indicated to me this office was not getting the feed back they wanted. Later I read that the polling data does show that the voters in states important to vulnerable democrats are expecting a yes on Kavanuagh. I am sure she is aware of that.

Personally I still think she will vote no and take the hit thinking it won’t sink her election. Hopefully she is wrong.


Just for accuracy’s sake, same gender “marriage “ was not banned prior to the SCOTUS ruling.
The Universal Unitarians performed these ceremonies long before the ruling.


I do find it amusing that some people seem to think political nastiness and dirty tricks are somehow only done by democrats. I don’t think that anyone can argue that the republicans are somehow more virtuous in political matters.


The Supreme Court does not repeal its decisions; it overrules them, when adjudicating a related case, on the basis of a change in their understanding of facts or law. I suspect that all of the people on the court know the approach that they would take on a case related to Roe. But they scrupulously avoid telling telling us. Whatever they do, I think that a return to the status quo ante is very unlikely.


Straw men.

Women were never punished for having abortions, and wouldn’t be if it was banned in some state or other. Those who perform them would be the ones punished.

Nobody in history has ever proposed banning adoption, and nobody does now. Nobody proposes banning childlessness.

If abortion is none of the government’s business, why does government protect and pay for it?


I think Bill Clinton banned same sex marriage:


What DOMA banned was government recognition of it.


Can you explain why women shouldn’t be punished? If a woman hires a hitman to have someone killed then both her and the hitman would go to jail. Why should things be different for abortion?


Why would you want to punish the woman?


Should not people who are accessory to murder be punished? Are you saying abortion is forced on women, that they have no moral culpability? What other murders should not be punished?


The fact is that they’re not. The whole “punish the woman” argument is bogus.


They should be. Make one argument why they shouldn’t be.


That’s like demanding an argument why we shouldn’t kill Martians. It won’t happen.


I personally think murderers should be punished, You are free to disagree.


It will. There is no reason that it shouldn’t.


The reason is that the populace doesn’t support it, and won’t.


Notice how silent they get when they are asked why they shouldn’t be punished. They cannot give a coherent answer to that question.


The populace is always a good indicator of morality.


Not necessarily, but the attitude of the populace is a very good indicator of what will happen politically.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit