The Hyde Amendment prevents federal funding for abortions via Medicaid except for rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life.
*Political* Dobbs V. Jackson Just Started
- Thread starter PorkshankRedemption
- Start date
- Status
Kind of an odd argument.
If "it's going to happen anyway," you'd have to really start providing access for a number of things: drugs, corruption...I mean, pretty much any law could be argued, "It's going to happen regardless. why not do it?
IMO, this argument worked for Pot. "It's going to happen anyways and it doesn't hurt anyone." I think the second part of that clause is what most people argue about.
I don't agree with the circular logic of the argument you were responding to, but I do kind of have this stance on illicit drugs. Might as well generate some sin tax revenue and regulate the industry for consumer safety's sake.
Agreed. I edited my post right before you responded with something of that nature.
- May 11, 2002
- 33,236
- 31,991
- 113
So, if you live in Arkansas, exactly $0 of your tax dollars are used to reimburse for abortion procedures.
…right. I never said otherwise. Using public funding for most everything is a gripe of mine. I want as little government as possible.
I would say the same could be said about firearms. People are going to get them anyway.
I mean that is my stance on drugs as well.
I feel that most pro-lifer's are supporting rights of the fetus. Thus by overturning Roe v Wade, states will reenact their anti-abortion laws, thus causing people to not get an abortion. I don't feel like that would be the case. I feel like the majority would still go through the procedure, but doing so would be much more risky to their health and safety.
Meant as a retweet for the person I responded to earlier in-thread. I'd never harm a hair on your little Libertarian head, kitten.
Would love to replicate many of the things Portugal did in regards to drug policy.
What was it 25 or 50 million in the rona relief bill that went to Pakistan gender studies. That is happening all over the globe. There was a mb thread on it showing how much of our money went out globally, usually to third world type nations, for birth control of some sort.
Its the globalist priority number 1 is population control and our government is bought in. Both sides. TRUMP was hurting the globalist agenda and both sides wanted him out. One side couldn't show it tho.
Pakistani gender studies sounds like a metaphorical abortion, but it sure ain't a literal one. Contraception is also not abortion.
If it's federally illegal to have an abortion, I don't think you can legally get one in a state? That's preemption, right? I think that's why the states have so many different laws about abortion because the federal government has essentially stated it isn't unconstitutional to get one. But if they say it is...can the state do one?
Honestly asking, this isn't a got ya thing.
Consumption and possession of marijuana still violates the Controlled Substances Act, but many states have successfully decriminalized recreational use.
If I remember the Roe v Wade correctly, the case basically decided that a women is constitutionally protected to get an abortion without government restrictions.
If that no longer applies, then states can issue their own state laws that are enforceable.
EDIT: Basically all the red states in the south can enact their own laws. I'm assuming all the Blue States wouldn't do anything and they could probably just cross state lines and get it there if worse came to worse.
All drugs should be legalized. Legalization is a drug dealers worst nightmare. Quit giving money to bad people. Our government knows this but the war on drugs makes our politicians to much money. The more money they can spend the more that comes back to them thru campaign contributions ect. The war on drugs is the pubs money grab like climate change is the dems.
Hmmm...good point...
So, again, honest question...if the state can just do whatever the fück they want...what is the purpose of roe v wade? If the federal government has no say in what Arkansas does from an Abortion standpoint, why should pro-life or pro-choice people care about what the government says? Because, from what it sounds like you're saying, regardless of what the federal government says, the state governments will do whatever they want.
Throw prostitution in there while you're at it. Sex traffickers are gonna be scrambling to find a new enterprise if the commercial sex trade goes legit nationwide.
Biggest thing they did to help was not to criminalize drug crimes. They wouldn't send people to jail, they go to therapy, support, etc.
That money wasn't part of covid relief. It was funding for USAID that was voted on at the same time but is part of government global outreach programs stemming from the early Cold War. It also wasn't being used for "gender studies" as you seem to portray them. It was for programs to promote anti-violence and female health programs in an underdeveloped part of the world.
American diplomacy is predicated -- rightly or wrongly -- on winning "hearts and minds" through spending on global outreach programs. Its soft power. Now, there is a legitimate debate to be had on whether that money should be spent here or there, but its been pretty well accepted for about 70 years by nearly every US politician that it should be spent.
It's not that the state can do whatever they want. The state law doesn't trump the federal law. In Denver, you could still be arrested on a federal drug charge. The issue is that the federal government doesn't actually care/have the resources to enforce this particular issue. A big reason why illegal immigration has run rampant in states/cities that openly wink at it.
This is more what I thought. Technically, pre-emption still applies; however, the federal government, nor the litigators, give a flying fück about pot. I don't know...I'm not a lawyer, haha.
- May 11, 2002
- 33,236
- 31,991
- 113
Just don't know if that would ever happen here. Too much money on prisons and nobody wants to fund social initiatives that help treat.
Good thing is now we don’t need the Grim Bottom. Say whatever you want OT and there is no punishment! It’s like the morons who argue the 1st Amendment like they can say what they want and they can’t get in trouble.
If it’s overturned should we buy stock in the largest manufacturer of clothes hangers? Asking for a friend
- May 11, 2002
- 33,236
- 31,991
- 113
It stays open only because everyone is being civil. If it goes south @DuckTalesLOL won't hesitate to close it.
Interesting discussion not that anybody’s opinion is going to be changed. If we are talking about the specific case before the court as I believe the OP wanted to, it really boils down to a states right to govern vs federal law. Abortion would still be legal but only in those states that would allow that by state law.
Very true. Alot of our laws create more bad things than they help. Alot of times the solution is worse than the problem. These things was why i voted Dem until the left went off the deep end with trans rights ect. You tell me anyone can walk in the same bathroom as my mom and daughter because they identify as a whatever ypu loose me. And transgenders playing women's sports is nutts. I cannot vote for thst crap and by voting dem that is what you are doing. Im just glad i can walk into a store and legally buy my weed nowvin Arkansas.
I listened to Kavanaugh's segment. Thats basically the clarification he asked for from MS and the one he was given. I will refrain from getting academic and explaining the historical problems with the state's rights arguments. But my immediate concern is that it will just lead to unsafe abortions in states that ban it. Like drugs or guns, abortion is here to stay. It comes down to approaching all of them responsibly.
I feel stronger about states rights than ever before. If you dont like living in a conservative state you could always move somewhere that suites you. And visa versa. Abortion is definitely a tough one for me.
- Status
Similar threads
