(09-16-2021 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Do you even know *why* the SCOTUS chose *not* to put forth an injunction?

They did not do so because 5 extremists on the court lack common sense. It's that simple. So much so that at least one of the 4 with common sense broke precedent by eliminating the word "Respectfully" from their dissent statement, which is basically giving the others the middle finger. Even Bush appointed chief justice Roberts strongly dissented against the extremist view. And here we have you (obviously lacking in sense yourself) siding with the extremists. Do you not pay attention to history at all? Are you excited the court is so divided now it's almost inevitable to take a toll on it's legitimacy? Does that make you proud?

(09-16-2021 12:35 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The pro-life movement was essentially a Catholic movement until Reagan.

So one would think our first openly Catholic President (Biden) coming out against it would officially end the movement.

(09-16-2021 12:45 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  By the way, the reason that abortion was nationalized as a political issue really had nothing to do with Nixon, even though you have name-dropped him a few times in this discussion. The reason that abortion became a major litmus test in national politics is because of Roe v Wade. Up until 1973, abortion was worked out in a state-by-state basis. Roe v Wade commanded that the issue be taken away from local politics and that one side — the pro-choice side — would have its views embedded into the nation’s basic law, and the other side — the pro-life side — would have its views rejected by the nation’s basic law. Politically, everything to do with abortion since 1973 is a result of that. National politics quickly became polarized around the issue, where it has remained for 49 years.

I don't disagree with any of this. I'm just saying it might not have and perhaps probably wouldn't have become politicized if one party didn't find themselves in desperate need for voters. As was mentioned previously, there were both significant numbers pro-choice and pro-life advocates on both sides for decades until Roe. Well I'm saying Roe just opened the door for the politicization. One side still needed motivation to actually politicize it.

If it wasn't for Nixon, then you tell me. What was it? What part of Republican politics at that time favored pro-life more than that on the Democratic side. I'd argue Democrats were more likely to take up the pro-life stance given that it were the Republican majority on the Supreme Court that finally gave up the ghost by letting Roe pass down. Also Republicans historically favored women's rights. They are the reason why we have the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote.