Joe to make Roe vs Wade the law of the land

[Ontologuy]

Joe Biden Says if Amy Coney Barrett Overturns Roe v. Wade, He'll Make It 'The Law of the Land'


Former Vice President Joe Biden has said he'll move to protect abortion rights if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, the historic decision that protected a woman's right to have an abortion.

The Democratic presidential nominee told an NBC News town hall in Miami on Monday that if the historic ruling on abortion is overturned, his "only response to that is pass legislation making Roe the law of the land. That's what I would do."

Biden Says if Roe v. Wade Is Overturned, He'll Make It 'Law of the Land'

The Democratic presidential candidate said he will protect abortion rights even if the Supreme Court strikes them down.

www.newsweek.com

The republicans don't want this bill as it passes through the house and senate. It'll be them versus the women of America, something that will hurt them in elections for years to come.

Do you think Joe and the democrats will make Roe vs Wade the law of the land?

In answer to your question, no, Joe and the Dems don't have the Senate votes to succeed, thanks to the filibuster.

The Republicans in the Senate don't care if Roe v. Wade and its buddy Webster v. Reproductive Health Services falls, as they nearly all campaigned on a platform with a pro-life plank.

It will be interesting, however.

It was only a few years after Roe that scientists proved beyond any rational conjecture that a human begins to live at conception, and Webster, subsequent to this scientific proof, changed a fixed number of gestation weeks to viability, viability that includes by artificial means.

As said artificial means have decreased the gestation boundary weeks significantly over the decades to have provided visible proof that even the tiniest of humans is indeed simply that, a human, very much alive, just very young, the denial of reality associated with advocating the pro-choice/pro-abortion movements has been subsiding for a while.

Should a case of relevance be decided by the SCOTUS, and Roe-Webster get overturned, the question is what will each state do, as minus a federal court decision, it seems the onus of next move is on the states.

Still, I'm sure some in the federal will then want to do something. The big question then is "what".

But they couldn't make Roe and Webster the law of the land, as if the SCOTUS just, in effect, removed its judicial activism entry into the law of the land back in the 1970s, the highly unlikely moment a Roe-Webster passes the Senate and is signed by Biden, it will be challenged by the SCOTUS .. who will repeal it by virtue of the same criteria they eliminated it in the decision of the case they had previously just ruled on.

So Sleepy Joe is simply blowin' smoke.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

In answer to your question, no, Joe and the Dems don't have the Senate votes to succeed, thanks to the filibuster.

The Republicans in the Senate don't care if Roe v. Wade and its buddy Webster v. Reproductive Health Services falls, as they nearly all campaigned on a platform with a pro-life plank.

It will be interesting, however.

It was only a few years after Roe that scientists proved beyond any rational conjecture that a human begins to live at conception, and Webster, subsequent to this scientific proof, changed a fixed number of gestation weeks to viability, viability that includes by artificial means.

As said artificial means have decreased the gestation boundary weeks significantly over the decades to have provided visible proof that even the tiniest of humans is indeed simply that, a human, very much alive, just very young, the denial of reality associated with advocating the pro-choice/pro-abortion movements has been subsiding for a while.

Should a case of relevance be decided by the SCOTUS, and Roe-Webster get overturned, the question is what will each state do, as minus a federal court decision, it seems the onus of next move is on the states.

Still, I'm sure some in the federal will then want to do something. The big question then is "what".

But they couldn't make Roe and Webster the law of the land, as if the SCOTUS just, in effect, removed its judicial activism entry into the law of the land back in the 1970s, the highly unlikely moment a Roe-Webster passes the Senate and is signed by Biden, it will be challenged by the SCOTUS .. who will repeal it by virtue of the same criteria they eliminated it in the decision of the case they had previously just ruled on.

So Sleepy Joe is simply blowin' smoke.

Filibustering won’t/can’t stop the measure from moving forward. Only delay it.

“Life” begins at conception. Nobody denies that very simple and obvious fact however, an embryo is not a human being. Not in the eyes of the law or the medical establishment (AMA).

Stop blowin’ smoke, yourself.

 

[rocket88]

1. “Easily overturned” is in the eye of the beholder. Based on the fact that, over decades, many have tried and failed to overturn Roe, the eye of this beholder believes success in doing so is the very furthest thing from easy.
2. “When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court.”

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

www.supremecourt.gov

In layman’s language, SCOTUS rulings are effectively, law of the land.

Effectively yes. My use of "easily" was not that it would be easily overturned, but that banning abortion would be easy then. There woukd be nothing stopping it because it's all based on a Court ruling. Explicitly legalizing abortion would fix that problem.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Effectively yes. My use of "easily" was not that it would be easily overturned, but that banning abortion would be easy then. There woukd be nothing stopping it because it's all based on a Court ruling. Explicitly legalizing abortion would fix that problem.

Do you think your previous posts can’t be retrieved and reposted to squash any attempt at lying?

Well, if you did, you were wrong.

It currently only exists as a court decision stopping abortion from being illegal. So it could easily be overturned allowing states to ban it.

 

[Ontologuy]

Filibustering won’t/can’t stop the measure from moving forward. Only delay it.

Filibustering most certainly will stop Roe and Webster from becoming the "law" of the land. Again, it's a fact, that almost all Republican Senators ran on a platform with a pro-life plank. They wouldn't dare vote pro-choice/pro-abortion.

As long as the filibuster exists and more than 40% of the Senate will vote pro-life, it's kind of a forgone conclusion.

Nevertheless, as I accurately said before, even if by some tragedy it passes and Biden-Harris signs it, the SCOTUS today will simply void it.

Some things are simply obvious.

“Life” begins at conception. Nobody denies that very simple and obvious fact however,

Your statement here is a bit inaccurate. More accurate is a human begins to live their life at conception.

If you just say "life" begins at conception but don't mention the biological classification genus of human, and you're posting in an abortion forum, then you're obviously a sophister.

an embryo is not a human being.

Actually, philosophy does consider the embryo of a human being to be a human being. "Embryo" is a term that merely signifies a developmental stage, like zygote, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, etc. None of these developmental stages stop referring to a human being merely because some pro-abortionist says so, as that would be dumb bunny ludicrous.

In addition, anthropology considers a human embryo to be a human being as well.

There's always been this pro-abortion contrivance that if the human being lives inside another human being then it's simply not a human being. That's pure sophistry, obviously.

Not in the eyes of the law.

The law once considered Africans in the Americas not to be human beings and instead property. But, no longer.

Laws can be in error .. and, eventually, we see that error, mostly thanks to philosophy, anthropology, and science, and we correct that law.

Roe and Webster will be corrected, I assure you.

Plus there are a number of state laws that do recognize that a human being begins at conception.

So your point about the law is meaningless.

Truth remains truth.

or the medical establishment (AMA).

The AMA can be bought by political powers, plus abortion is big business, and, after allowing it for so long, it's difficult for them to change their tune even in the face of hard scientific evidence, because, like most pro-abortionists, if you murder enough human beings, you become emotionally numb to the horror of it.

Stop blowin’ smoke, yourself.

Now you're simply projecting.

Philosophy, anthropology, taxonomy, life science, DNA science, all of them, all are in support of the pro-life position.

It's simply a matter of time ... .