With all the talk of the possibility of overturning, or at least gutting, Roe v. Wade, do you think it would be advantageous to the national Democratic Party if it did happen with the coming Supreme Court? After all, it would take the abortion debate off the national political table and allow the Democrats to concentrate on other areas. Does Roe/Wade hurt the Democratic party; painting them into a corner. Curious as to opinions.
Well, abortion is killing a lot of potential Democrats who will not be raised in the homes of current Democrats. This is especially true for minority groups that are heavily Democrat voters because African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans have higher than average rates of abortion.
I have no idea what the impact will be. If it ushers in a new wave of feminism, it may result in a constitutional amendment to protect reproductive rights. My guess is that any action to weaken Roe by SCOTUS will trigger the effort in the states. That could be good for the Democrats, especially if their candidates don’t take corporate donations and they run on a populist platform.
The current Republican hegemony is deceptive, because the demographic tide is against them. Voter suppression and gerrymandering can only work for so long. Perhaps that is why the GOP has resorted to stealing elections by colluding with Russians and obstructing justice. However, they still have their own propaganda networks and a base that would support Donald Trump even if he stood in the middle of 5th avenue and shot somebody. They will continue to fight ruthlessly like they always do.
Kind of like the Democrats did with the Mafia to steal the 1960 election for Kennedy? Paint everyone with the same brush.
I was thinking more like the Nixon campaign breaking into the DNC headquarters in the Watergate offices to steal information they could use to help Nixon and hurt George McGovern.
Which I have to admit was stupid. McGovern was such a wackaloon that the mental acuity of anyone voting for him should have been checked. Unfortunately Nixon was a bit paranoid. A Labrador retriever who could sit, roll over, and fetch, could have beaten McGovern.
Sounds like what a lot of folks say about Trump supporters today.
What? Made in the image of God, children of the Almighty Father with a free will to think for themselves? Thank you for loving us even though we agree to disagree…
I was simply pointing out the offensiveness of the original comment. You do agree it was offensive, right?
The supreme court ruling on federal law on abortion is not even constitutional…
A law that you can or can not is not even something that they have jurisdiction over.
It would be extremely advantageous to the Democratic party. It’s why Roe still stands despite Republicans controlling all three branches of government for the majority of time since the Roe decision. It is very important for the Republican party that abortion remains legal since it motivates their voters, hence a vote for Republicans is a vote for legal abortion.
I think this is an unfair assessment put out by Democrats to justify Catholics’ voting D.
Rs have passed a lot of laws to reduce abortion and to make it “safer,” which Ds say they want but fight at every turn, one might even say ruthlessly.
I think if Americans were better educated on abortion, there would be a lot less support for its legality.
I believe your reply was offensive. It just makes me sad that we can’t come together as a nation and work for the good.
My sense is that it would simply move the battle to individual states, where it belongs in the first place
It makes me sad too. I was honestly responding sarcastically to the comment I quoted. However, I do think Trump supporters fall into two categories of people: wolves and sheep.
The wolves are folks like Trump, Mitch McConnell, Hannity, Steve Bannon, Manafort and organizations like the NRA and the dark money elite who lobby for economic libertarianism, and fuel right-wing think tanks and the right-wing media that spreads their propaganda. They only care about social issues to the extent that it gives them money or power.
The sheep are the people who consume right-wing media and buy into it’s nativist slant and scapegoating of the poor and marginalized, without realizing it’s all just a red herring to distract them from the wolves, who are really responsible for all the misery and frustration they feel. These folks are generally good people, but they are consumers of criticism, rather than being skilled in critical thought.
There are wolves and sheep on the liberal side as well. Planned Parenthood is probably the most evil wolf imaginable. They don’t care about women’s rights or healthcare, they just want to make a profit and protect their baby killing business. The liberals who claim to care about solving social problems, but buy into their rhetoric and never challenge them, they are sheep too.
Sheep are good people. They are not like wolves who prey on others, or goats who only take care of themselves. However, sheep need good leaders. That is why God sent Jesus. Jesus wants you to accept him as your shepherd and follow him. Only he can guide you to the right path. Pope Francis is his living representative on Earth. That is an amazing thing. Other political leaders also exist who follow his way. I believe John Kasich is one of them. Those are the people you should support.
You should never follow a wolf, even partway up the trail, because the way is so narrow that you are likely to fall off into the abyss.
Oops! Here I go with a Masters Degree + and I am feeling stupid…
The perception that Republicans do not recognize issues such as child-care, a fair wage, healthcare, education, gun control and the environment as Pro-Life issues is pervasive enough among liberals that Michelle Wolf was able to use it as evidence that Conservatives are not Pro-Life, they are anti-women.
All the laws you reference only feed into that perception. There is no evidence that “TRAP” laws (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) actually make abortions any safer for the woman, but they do make it more difficult and expensive to get an abortion, so they function as a deterrent.
I think Catholics should demand that the GOP broaden it’s definition of what it means to be Pro-Life, and that the Democrates start recognizing that unborn children have a right to life.
Then you should know that credentials don’t matter. There are plenty of Ph.Ds who can only think critically within their narrow field. Most people today do not receive a traditional liberal arts education, but think they know it all by virtue of their degree.
Broadening the idea that “pro-life” means more than making the killing of currently unprotected innocent people illegal is, in my view, a trap by some wolves to get pro-life people to think that it’s ok to vote Democrat.
The fact that the Ds have pushed this idea through several election cycles so Michelle Wolfe, comedienne, can use it in one of her sick “jokes” is testament only to the power of their PR machine.
Including lots of other priorities would split the movement into pieces and redirect the attention of many. PP would be very pleased about that.
Making abortion clinics adhere to the same standards as other outpatient clinics in terms of hospital admitting priveleges, sanitation, and life-saving equipment, these would save women’s lives because abortionists are not perfect.
Right now, they are making a huge profit on 15-minute assembly-line procedures because they can. The market will bear that price. Spending a paltry amount on the same sort of expenses other clinics already have would not add an appreciable amount to the price of an abortion because it’s already as high as they can put it without losing business.
You do know that NARAL lied about the number of women getting abortions before Roe v Wade, right? They pulled that number out of a hat.
Before abortion was legal, women tended to be careful when and with whom they had sex. Rough on the guys, who were all for legalizing abortion, like Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy. If we illegalize abortion, I suspect women might start being a little more choosey once again.
Awwwww, poor sex-starved men. Boo-hoo.
The Rs believe that a well-functioning economy allows people to stand on their own two feet without needing government aid, and before you say anything: the Rs are not interested in removing the social safety net as the Ds always advertise during election time. No throwing Grandma off the cliff.
I certainly agree that D’s, the self-styled champions of the little guy, should recognize that everyone has a right to life; on that we agree.
Can you imagine the powerhouse the D party would be if they did? But no…