[Lincolnian]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

That's where the "unthinkable" about our country actually breaking up could actually happen. I don't think the blue states would put up with a national total abortion ban that has zero exceptions....or worse if there is a national "birth control" ban (if SCOTUS scuttles Griswold sometime between now and 2024).

Not going to happen. The breaking up of the country is not a realistic solution to solve these issues. If one thought they would be better off they are sadly mistaken. Our constitution is based on a dual system of government and any action that looks to formally separate states would likely result in another civil war. Pragmatically, it would lead to far worse economic and social consequences if we dissolved our country than to follow the process defined in the Constitution to find a solution to these issues.

[FordBronco1967]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

Since someone noted how France stops it at 14 weeks or something like that, if SCOTUS followed Roberts' lead and simply cut it to 15 weeks, I don't think we'd have the chaos that resulted and it would kind of be compromise. But I'd still want there to be exceptions for situations where it's "life of the mother". I think 15 weeks could easily be enough for rape though (but not 6! Or worse, total absolute bans).

Every single state has exceptions for the life of the mother. Almost every state has exceptions for rape and incest, which is only truly needed in states that enact strict limits. It should also be noted that abortions that occur due to rape, incest, or life of the mother only makeup about 1.5 percent of all abortions. The vast majority of abortions that occur are the result of unprotected sex.

If the Constitution does not explicitly state or imply that the right to an abortion is Constitutionally protected, then how would the Supreme Court be able to establish limits on abortion? The answer is that they cannot, which is why they completely left it up to the states.

[in_newengland]

I saw a thread the other day and maybe it was in the Texas forum. They were discussing the politics and they were complaining about the unbearable heat and the strain of their power grid (or whatever you call it.) They were not happy and sounded kind of scared. Some did speak about the birth control and abortion issues and I know one said he had the money take his (niece? daughter) out of state if needed so he would stay in Texas and fight for rights.

I think some of the others said they were looking for places to move to. A good thing would be to check some of the threads on CD from the weirdo states.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by FordBronco1967

If the Constitution does not explicitly state or imply that the right to an abortion is Constitutionally protected, then how would the Supreme Court be able to establish limits on abortion? The answer is that they cannot, which is why they completely left it up to the states.

I have tried to explain this to so many (and I’m pro choice!) yet either people cannot comprehend it, or they refuse to acknowledge.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by FordBronco1967

If the Constitution does not explicitly state or imply that the right to an abortion is Constitutionally protected, then how would the Supreme Court be able to establish limits on abortion? The answer is that they cannot, which is why they completely left it up to the states.

Correct. One key many uninformed people miss is the urge amongst pro choice folks for Congress to codify the right to an abortion. That is who is empowered to do so, in addition to states, and any legislative body able to codify can do so in EITHER direction. They miss the fact codifying is a right SCOTUS lacks.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

That's where the "unthinkable" about our country actually breaking up could actually happen. I don't think the blue states would put up with a national total abortion ban that has zero exceptions....or worse if there is a national "birth control" ban (if SCOTUS scuttles Griswold sometime between now and 2024).

Do you really think either of those things is even remotely possible?

[WestRiverTraveler]

Originally Posted by mmpqqq

If you ask most conservatives in the states you dub ameristan, I assure you they view this as a feature not a flaw. they do not want an immense influx of liberals fleeing bad policy blue states and voting in the same bad policy.

Leaving aside the “bad policy” nonsense, I agree they think it’s a feature for them. Let’s see how well those states do down road when a huge portion of the highly educated, highly productive liberals leave. North Carolina might want to get rid off all the libs in the Triangle, Charlotte, and Asheville, but you can bet you butt the state benefits from them. When those companies who relocated there for lower taxes find out they can’t attract talent anymore, let’s see how great things look down there.

Maybe those companies go back or continue remote so talent can move. Progressives flock to the affordable parts of CT and MA. Massive resurgence in Eastern CT from Texas refugees. Killingly school board snaps and has a mass relocation to TN when progressives take over the town.

So sad for the women of Ameristan, but I’m also sad for women in Iran. We can’t fix them.

Big win for CT in the long run. Quiet corner and Naug Valley back to life. I’m ready.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by WestRiverTraveler

Big win for CT in the long run. Quiet corner and Naug Valley back to life. I’m ready.

My first professional job was in the Naugatuck Valley, and I find that line hilarious.

[Stepfordct]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

I think some of the others said they were looking for places to move to. A good thing would be to check some of the threads on CD from the weirdo states.

Why don't you list which states you deem weirdo for us......

[Stepfordct]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

My first professional job was in the Naugatuck Valley, and I find that line hilarious.

Yes, everyone knows the CT valley is the secret epicenter of CT.....