Of course, just as we have strict gun control folks, we will also have strict pro-life folks.
The bolded is the lie.
Once again, that isn't what I said. Is reading comprehension not your thing? I said nothing about pro-lifers regarding their acceptance of abortion services. You won't reach those people. What I did say was that a good portion of conservatives and Republicans aren't fervent pro-lifers.
what constitutionalists want is for the court to rescind a godawful judicial precedent and have it passed properly as a law or amendment.
So now we will get into some nit picking of the word most?
Then state the end game, and we can agree on that either happening or not, because all I see so far is a host of chicken little "sky is falling" postings here and by the media everywhere.
the argument goes something like: inferring that from the right to privacy is a thin thin reasoning for judicial lawmaking. It also should apply to many other things that being the case, and states rights in the matter.
Since your republican’t logic prevents federal laws on preventing gun massacres, trashing the environment, and having universal weed laws and wages.
... these are not democratic party positions at all. We're all about those Federal one-size fits all mandates, remember? Think through your talking points.
People who "support abortion, with limits" generally just want to control women to varying degrees. Their position is absolutely illogical.
Those repubs and cons who you ‘think’ support abortion are extremely quiet and under the thumb of extremists who make laws and control gop orthodoxy.
What you think this looks like after the decision.
I disagree. I think D's would be fine with having federal gun control, environmental protection, minimum wage and recreational drug laws.
Yes, of course. That would be the end game you hear everyone screeching about.
