I wouldn't be surprised if in the fantasy scenario where 10 or 20 Rs flipped, you'd suddenly find 10 or 20 Ds who just have to buck the party on this one.
Colorado signs law allowing abortion at ANY POINT in PREGNANCY
- Thread starter Phoenixmgs
- Start date
He may have not considered Roe to be under threat at that time. It's regarded as a drastic step; some may be unwilling to use it unless the need is immediate.
They'd have to argue, convincingly, that some section of the constitution grants congress the right to legislate abortion, and I honestly don't think such an arguement could be made. The most they could do is probably protect travelling pregnant people by appealing to interstate commerce.
Being a colossal idiot who gets a surprise everytime the sun rises isn't the best defense.
It's not a defence. Manchin doesn't deserve defending, as an unprincipled moron. But it's a plausible explanation for why he may approach the issue differently after the events of the last few days, as compared to February.
It is a weird scenario. It's easy enough to classify it as healthcare, and there are certainly federal statutes providing for and restricting healthcare, but I don't know about the federal government preventing the states from regulating healthcare.
Honestly, I don't think this is necessary. More far-reaching aspects of healthcare have been devolved before.
Let me know when someone that is not a woman (or girl) gives birth.
It's by such a small amount, it shouldn't really matter. I shouldn't dictate you hating on R policy almost exclusively. And in the last few years, I'd be leaning towards Rs being slightly less worse now as the left has gone insane with quite a few things as they are now against some core progressive principles.
You keep posting stuff that Rs do that either doesn't do what you think or doesn't do anything, and you just jump to Rs rounding up trans people into concentration camps when like step 1 of that of say a 100-step plan hasn't even happened yet. Both sexes have equal rights, there's literally nothing trans people need to fight for as they are part of one of the sexes.
Calling dems evil? Both parties are against the people. I don't know why anyone votes for either of them.
They are both for the same macro things that are bad for everyone.
Says it doesn't matter.... then admits he favors one over the other.
For what it's worth I have amended my opinion of you. You've clarified some things. Sadly, it's still a lateral move.
...you realize that the SCOTUS is set to blow up Roe v Wade, right? Which makes this law that you were pretending doesn't do anything incredibly relevant?
Don't blame other people for your lack of pattern recognition
That has nothing to do with you saying
You're just trying to distract from the fact you said something stupid.
Also trans men are men and girls aren't "women".
If you're gonna force me to choose, I'll choose. But I don't need to vote for either of them so thus it really doesn't matter. It's like I don't like beer but if you're forcing me to pick one, I'll pick one.
The way Roe was argued was poor and pretty easy to overturn, it's not even a Rep/Dem issue, it was bad law. Also, even John Oliver's biased episode on it highlighted how dems did nothing to strengthen Roe in 50 years.
How doesn't it, it's just something people can't understand that's based on sex vs gender.
Trans men are women by sex.
Show that a pregnant girl complained about the calling the pregnancy building/department women's and children's and I'll admit it was stupid.
Oh yeah, super easy to overturn. It only required 50 years worth of dedicated work and multiple examples of rank political hypocrisy. While the Dems have their share of blame, the Supreme Court went almost a year without a hearing for a new member while a few years later one got pushed through in 8 days under similar circumstances. It wasn't easy, it took a long ass time and the sacrifice of any semblance of good governance to finally get the right number of blatant political operatives on board.
There's actually a *lot* of existing literature complaining that calling girls "women" prematurely sexualizing them, marking them as fair game for pedo men. But I guess because these changes appear unprompted to you, the must be being made with zero justifications completely unprompted, which as everyone knows is inherently stupid, unlike bitterly complaining that women were lumped in with "people" instead of being their own classification of human distinct from "people"
Pretty much any law that reaches SCOTUS can be justified to be overturned relatively easily.
Why? Because in order to reach SCOTUS, a law or judicial ruling must be unclear: otherwise it would be dealt with by lower courts and not heard by higher ones at all. Because of that lack of clarity, it means there are credible arguments both for and against within jurisprudence. Thus any SCOTUS court can, instead of accepting the reasoning of the earlier court, adopt another.
Not necessarily, no.
Biological sex is usually categorised according to several factors: gonads, genitals, hormones, and/or chromosomes. None of which are 100%.
To say that "trans men are women by sex", you would have to either 1) believe that chromosomes are the sole and overriding factor, or 2) be going solely by sex at birth, regardless of whether those above factors have changed.
It should be obvious that neither of those options actually hold much water when you look a little deeper. Chromosomes are functionally the least useful indicator of the four, for instance; they cannot be changed, but their sole function is in forming those other physical characteristics... which can be changed. Plus, throughout human history we have categorised the biological sexes without ever knowing chromosomes existed. And still, today, doctors and veterinarians determine someone's physical sex without looking at chromosomes.
And there's just no rational reason to consider "sex at birth" to be the same thing as someone's present physical sex. Scientists don't. Doctors don't. You might as well consider someone's height at birth to be their "physical height" regardless of what changes when they're an adult.
The anti-trans brigade like to believe they have science on their side, but they're actually a bunch of scientifically ignorant tools.
Bullshit, the concept of gender is older than the scientific understanding of sex. We were dividing based on gender long before we understood any of the concepts the gender critical hold up as proof of gender
Why are you more comfortable using the more general "women" when referring to all women and girls but oppose using a more general "people". The harm of one can leave girls and trans men caught out of laws that are meant to protect them and the harm of the other is it gets idiots frothing at the mouth over "culture war".
Like if you honestly believe that grouping trans women in with women will cause more harm than grouping girls in with women then it's because you're a transphobe. Or, like Tucker Carlson you think it should be fine to marry 15 year old girls.
Yes, but what's sex?
In practice, babies get pulled out of mummies' vaginas, someone looks at whether they have a penis or vagina, and they get their sex assigned. One might therefore argue that someone who has their genitals appropriately remodelled has changed sex.
This already effectively exists as practice. There are people with XY (male) chromosomes who will have female form because they have complete androgen insensitivity syndrome that makes them unresponsive to male hormone signalling. So what is their sex? They have been and continue to be defined as female. So why not transmen also?
You're asking the wrong question. Why are we doing things like organising sports based on what genitalia you are born with? Seems like an incredibly stupid way of organising things