You're misrepresenting the argument. The point is not that the hardcore base of Republicans will turn on them over this kind of fundamentalism, the point is that it will - over time!!! - turn off voters in the middle of the electorate, voters that the GOP needs to remain competitive on the federal level. And like I've stressed repeatedly, first, it is not clear whether the GOP at-large will really embrace such a fundamentalist stance and second, it will take time for a potential backlash to materialize.

And of course it is ridiculous to assume that the stance of some obscure state representative and the governor of an R+30 state is automatically reflective of the overall party. If Trump or DeSantis ever embrace an abortion ban without exceptions for rape or the life of the mother, I'll apologize.

So now they get covid pills by mail for their abortions, i'd think they'd be celebrating not complaining.

This post was edited by lodd222 on Jul 5 2022 06:38pm

just for the record, thats just straight up evil, no argument from me on this one

Amazon selling Plan B in bulk on special.

Most "mainstream" republicans are happy to let the radicals in their party have abortion as a pet project as long as they still get the promise of lower taxes and support for the blue collar workers they also voted for.

just like most mainstream liberals will let the idiots push for trans bathrooms as long as they get the vague outline of a progressive govt.

many people want to believe that a voter is deciding between trans indoctrination in schools and 10 year olds being forced to give birth to rape incest babies. when in reality you're either for slight lower or slightly higher taxes. do you want slightly better schools or a slightly better jobs market. that's it.

true, every side loves to fear monger that the other side will go to the extreme

I mean look at all this nonsense over the SCOTUS decision to return the issue to the states as the constitution is clear. The left talks like that decision = The Taliban or something

i dont think that bolded is accurate. that's an interpretation of the constitution, but i dont see it as crystal clear. that would suggest that if congress were to codify abortion access legislation that the scotus would strike it down automatically, which i dont think is accurate. were it unconstitutional congress couldnt codify it, scotus just ruled that these 2 cases shouldnt override state legislative decisions, not necessarily that the congress can't do what the Roe and PP cases tried to do.

I think that's really the legal crux of the Dobbs decision: the current, conservative court was no longer willing to accept a federal right to abortion derived not from federal legislation, but rather from a court precedent. In principle, I completely agree with this stance; "substantive due process" is an abomination and should not replace Congress doing its fucking job. Neither party should be able to rely on the courts to get its political priorities enacted.

Yep, yep. ^^

I can agree it's not crystal clear, but it is more just the trivial solution as in the absence of legislation, the decision rests with the states unless codified otherwise

I believe if congress were to codify abortion access then the SCOTUS wouldn't have an issue as the legislation exists.

Which begs the question why it hasn't been codified yet. I don't think it is as popular a position as people like to say. If it was it should have or would have been codified years ago