(10-15-2020 12:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-15-2020 10:54 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I haven't paid any attention to the Barrett hearings because I have been busy with other stuff. But if Barrett had been in place for the last 8 years instead of RBG, the most likely scenario is that gay people would not be allowed to marry in many states and the ACA would have been deemed unconstitutional. In fact, I doubt the current composition of the Court (with Barrett) would deem [/i]Obergefell[/i] as super-precedent. So like it or not, there are certainly policy implications and effects from the judicial appointment. Many Republicans have been saying for years that they want judges appointed who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and find the ACA unconstitutional. I fully expect that most of them believe Barrett would do so, even if they don't want to talk about it.

Outside of that, the majority of Republicans wouldn't ban abortions. I think this is a massive red herring. I could be wrong, but I would bet that every 'right winger' on here on some level does not favor a ban on abortion... nor do we want them to be so hard to get as to make them effectively banned. When someone says, 'overturn RvW', that doesn't always mean the same thing to me, or even to Democrats.

Let me introduce you to Trigger Laws, which are laws that go into action as soon as Roe v Wade is overturned. Arkansas passed theirs in 2019.

https://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/...s-abortion

Arkansas: The state’s trigger law went into effect last month. All abortions would be banned except in the case of medical emergencies, the Associated Press reported.
Louisiana: Former Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed an act to ban abortions in 2006. The only exception is when a mother’s life is in danger.
Mississippi: Under the state’s rule, abortions would become illegal 10 days after a SCOTUS decision, according to WJTV. Exceptions would include a pending rape prosecution or if the mother’s life is in jeopardy.
North Dakota: The state passed legislation in 2007. “An abortion would only be defensible in court if it were deemed necessary to prevent the death of the mother or if the pregnancy resulted from rape, sexual abuse or incest,” the Grand Forks Herald reported.
South Dakota: All abortions would be deemed illegal except those deemed “medically necessary” by a doctor.

So regardless of whether conservatives on this board don't support bans, we live in a country where there is obviously political will and interest to do so. Ergo, no red herring.