Quote

(f)Preemption
The provisions of this section do not preempt any State or local law requirement, except to the extent that the requirement directly conflicts with a requirement of this section.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jul 5 2022 05:20pm)

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.

Quote (PlasmaSnake101 @ 12 Jul 2022 00:54)

So sick of this line. Deliver what the party wants. Victories energize the base and demoralize the enemy

Quote (Goomshill @ 12 Jul 2022 00:06)

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/11/roe-v-wade-hhs-says-physicians-must-provide-abortions-in-medical-emergencies-regardless-of-state-law.html

Here's our latest legal showdown

Biden's HHS vows that if hospitals won't ignore state laws and provide abortions to women in emergency situations in states where its illegal, they'll fine the doctors and hospitals and cut their medicare buckaroos
But if they obey the feds, they'll be subject to state criminal law that can take away their medical license, fine them and throw them in prison

They cite a redefinition of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, using chevron doctrine.
The EMTALA explicitly says:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395dd
:bonk:

Quote (El1te @ Jul 11 2022 04:34pm)

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

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jul 11 2022 09:06pm)

I wouldn't be so sure that a "no exceptions for rape, incest of the life of the mother"-ban of abortions is really what the party wants. Say a referendum was held among Republican voters with these options:

• ban abortions after [8-15] weeks
  
• ban abortions, except in case of rape, incest or medical emergencies
  
• ban abortions without any exceptions
  
• no restrictions on abortion whatsoever

I'm pretty sure that the 2nd option would win.

Quote (EndlessSky @ 12 Jul 2022 14:32)

Because a situation that accounts for less than 0.01% of all outcomes is worth wasting our time on…

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jul 12 2022 07:43am)

Then why not carve exceptions for these exceedingly rare "less than 0.01% of outcomes"?

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jul 12 2022 08:43am)

Then why not carve exceptions for these exceedingly rare "less than 0.01% of outcomes"?

Quote (thesnipa @ 12 Jul 2022 14:45)

because the principal of the issue to pro lifers is that ZERO, literal ZERO, abortions are allowed. and God's plan takes effect. and if those mothers die that didnt have to they die. they're just too cowardly to admit it and prefer to hide behind the percent.