• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An Idea for Re-Legalizing Abortion

When Sinema and Manchin want to give Republicans their way while pretending they wished it were otherwise, they hide behind a supposed reverence for the filibuster. That may soon be all that stands in the way of a federal law that would restore abortion rights nationally, if the high court does, indeed, overturn Roe. Sinema and Manchin have made it clear they won't vote to repeal the filibuster, but how about just trimming it?

This has already happened repeatedly. For example, the way Republicans jammed these extremist conservatives onto the high court in the first place was that the filibuster has been made inapplicable to Supreme Court confirmations. There's also the reconciliation process, that says that so long as the parliamentarian affirms certain things about House and Senate bills, a reconciled package can be passed in the Senate with a simple majority vote. This would just extend that concept.

The idea would be to make it so if the parliamentarian affirms that the law in question only reimposes a federal rule that was struck down when a federal court reversed an earlier case, then a simple majority is enough in the Senate. That would do very little to erode the filibuster, since it's a scenario that might only come up once per generation. It would also apply, for instance, if the high court's theocrats were to reverse the earlier ruling requiring equal access to marriage for gay couples. If they struck that down, tossing things back to the states, a simple majority in the Senate would be all they needed to pass a bill that would restore those rights nationally.

I think it would be a lot harder for Sinema and Manchin (and Collins and any other supposedly pro-choice Republicans) to cower behind a feigned reverence for procedure, if instead of blowing up the filibuster, we were just reworking it very slightly.
Have you thought of the future? Doing away with the filibuster for legislation would make any law passed be in the same status of an executive order. Any new president can revoke, repeal, change EO’s to his whim. With no filibuster, when the senate changes hands, a simple majority can repeal any law previously passed. Abortion may be legal today under a Democratic controlled senate, but illegal tomorrow under a GOP controlled senate who simply repealed the democrat’s passed abortion law. Then with a simple majority vote, the GOP can make any and all abortion illegal and repeal any passed law they don’t like.

I look at this akin to Ex-senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid’s precedence setting, first use of the nuclear option. Yes, it netted him and the democrats a short-term gain. But in the long run, Reid’s first use of the nuclear option benefited the Republicans to the tune of 3 SCOTUS judges.

With knee jerk reactions, which I would deem doing away with the filibuster today, may in the future, the long come back to haunt all those who believe in abortion rights. That is unless you think the Democrats will control the senate from now until dooms day. It seems Harry Reid thought that to be the case when he first used the nuclear option. That he never thought it would come back to bite him and the Democrats in the butt.

My only advice is to think things through before one acts. Weigh what might happen in the future. Keep in mind a law would have to cover many different abortion views. 19% think abortion should be illegal in all instances, 29% think abortion should be legal only for rape, incest, a mother’s life in danger. 72% think abortion should be banned after the first trimester. Can you come up with a law to make all of them happy? Where will the line be drawn? Think before one acts. You may make more people mad than happy.
 
You don't think that women's healthcare has a budgetary element? Source for they were told to follow the law? The Parliamentarian probably told them something wouldn't qualify, but it is a Senate rule not a law.
Ok but to override the Parliamentarian requires 50 votes.
 
Ok but to override the Parliamentarian requires 50 votes.
Under current Senate rules it would be 60, but there is also precedent where the Parliamentarian is overruled by the presiding officer.
 
You don't think that women's healthcare has a budgetary element?
Not unless you're paying a bill.

Source for they were told to follow the law?

The Parliamentarian probably told them something wouldn't qualify, but it is a Senate rule not a law.
The Parliamentarian ensures that the Senate is following the Constitution. It is a violation of the Constitution (S5/C2) for the Senate to ignore its rules.
 
Not unless you're paying a bill.




The Parliamentarian ensures that the Senate is following the Constitution. It is a violation of the Constitution (S5/C2) for the Senate to ignore its rules.
Bad joke?

Like I said, it is not a law.

That would be an incorrect interpretation of the clause you cited. Also, the Parliamentarian deals with Senate rules and parliamentary procedures, not constitutionality.
 
Your whimpering like a little bitch doesn't serve your position well, either. Once you get your ultra-sensitive feelings under control, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the substantive idea. Also, learn the difference between "you're" and "your."
your post goes against the rules. You're not allowed to call members a "little bitch". Behave.
 
When Sinema and Manchin want to give Republicans their way while pretending they wished it were otherwise, they hide behind a supposed reverence for the filibuster. That may soon be all that stands in the way of a federal law that would restore abortion rights nationally, if the high court does, indeed, overturn Roe. Sinema and Manchin have made it clear they won't vote to repeal the filibuster, but how about just trimming it?

This has already happened repeatedly. For example, the way Republicans jammed these extremist conservatives onto the high court in the first place was that the filibuster has been made inapplicable to Supreme Court confirmations. There's also the reconciliation process, that says that so long as the parliamentarian affirms certain things about House and Senate bills, a reconciled package can be passed in the Senate with a simple majority vote. This would just extend that concept.

The idea would be to make it so if the parliamentarian affirms that the law in question only reimposes a federal rule that was struck down when a federal court reversed an earlier case, then a simple majority is enough in the Senate. That would do very little to erode the filibuster, since it's a scenario that might only come up once per generation. It would also apply, for instance, if the high court's theocrats were to reverse the earlier ruling requiring equal access to marriage for gay couples. If they struck that down, tossing things back to the states, a simple majority in the Senate would be all they needed to pass a bill that would restore those rights nationally.

I think it would be a lot harder for Sinema and Manchin (and Collins and any other supposedly pro-choice Republicans) to cower behind a feigned reverence for procedure, if instead of blowing up the filibuster, we were just reworking it very slightly.
That seems a sensible and workable solution. Of course, that means it will never happen, alas.
 
Bad joke?

Like I said, it is not a law.

That would be an incorrect interpretation of the clause you cited. Also, the Parliamentarian deals with Senate rules and parliamentary procedures, not constitutionality.
If the Senate violates the rules it is a violation of the Constitution. If they don't like their rules, they have to create new ones. This is why they can't ignore the filibuster for abortion. I'm not sure what has you confused by this. It's pretty friggin basic.
 
If the Senate violates the rules it is a violation of the Constitution. If they don't like their rules, they have to create new ones. This is why they can't ignore the filibuster for abortion. I'm not sure what has you confused by this. It's pretty friggin basic.
No it isn't.

I'm not confused by what has you confused...you don't understand what constitutional means.
 
No it isn't.

I'm not confused by what has you confused...you don't understand what constitutional means.
If the Senate violates the rules and pushes a low through that was not properly passed by Congress what happens? A judge says "that's perfectly legal, no problem?" No, they throw it out and tell them to follow the Constitution.
 
If the Senate violates the rules and pushes a low through that was not properly passed by Congress what happens? A judge says "that's perfectly legal, no problem?" No, they throw it out and tell them to follow the Constitution.
The Senate cannot push through a bill that was not properly passed by Congress. An unconstitutional law, properly passed by Congress, waits for an Article 3 ruling to declare its unconstitutionality. And once again...you are not talking about a law, you are talking about a Senate rule (which is not a law).
 
When Sinema and Manchin want to give Republicans their way while pretending they wished it were otherwise, they hide behind a supposed reverence for the filibuster. That may soon be all that stands in the way of a federal law that would restore abortion rights nationally, if the high court does, indeed, overturn Roe. Sinema and Manchin have made it clear they won't vote to repeal the filibuster, but how about just trimming it?

This has already happened repeatedly. For example, the way Republicans jammed these extremist conservatives onto the high court in the first place was that the filibuster has been made inapplicable to Supreme Court confirmations. There's also the reconciliation process, that says that so long as the parliamentarian affirms certain things about House and Senate bills, a reconciled package can be passed in the Senate with a simple majority vote. This would just extend that concept.

The idea would be to make it so if the parliamentarian affirms that the law in question only reimposes a federal rule that was struck down when a federal court reversed an earlier case, then a simple majority is enough in the Senate. That would do very little to erode the filibuster, since it's a scenario that might only come up once per generation. It would also apply, for instance, if the high court's theocrats were to reverse the earlier ruling requiring equal access to marriage for gay couples. If they struck that down, tossing things back to the states, a simple majority in the Senate would be all they needed to pass a bill that would restore those rights nationally.

I think it would be a lot harder for Sinema and Manchin (and Collins and any other supposedly pro-choice Republicans) to cower behind a feigned reverence for procedure, if instead of blowing up the filibuster, we were just reworking it very slightly.
Did you read the document or are you just going by the Propaganda the Media Spoon Feeds you ?
What I read basically said:
R v W gave far too broad rights/freedom on Abortions !
The SCOTUS say they want to take this case away from the Federal domain and give it back to the States.

It said NOTHING about making abortion illegal! So you may not know it but your post is about an issue that does not exist!
You have been conned by the Propagandist.

Now if you think your state or certain States will vote to make all abortions illegal then that would be the first argument to have before
you try to discuss something that you are basically making up in your own head (With the help of the Propagandist) !

P.S. You're welcome!
 
Back
Top Bottom