Harris may have been light on policy, but she was able to bait an ‘unhinged’ Trump into a number of traps

  • snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    She doesn’t want to describe exactly what restrictions on abortions she would support, because that would become the talking point for the right.

    She said she would codify Roe V Wade into law. We know that is because it was in place for five decades and it doesn’t need to be explained during a debate.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Right, that was the talking point, and that was smart to stick to that. Because it sounds like an answer to the question, but it doesn’t nail down specifics that can be used in attack ads from the right or the left.

      Roe V Wade was a court decision that was interpreted and modified through a long history of court decisions. It’s not one set of rights and restrictions.

      Here’s an excellent, in-depth summary of all of the relevant court cases that led to the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org ruling:

      https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/roe-v-wade-and-supreme-court-abortion-cases?fbclid=IwAR2Kz765sU

      To codify Roe V Wade into law would require a constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion. Anything less will be challenged in court, and unless we can impeach some illegitimate Justices, the SCOTUS is going to continue to push their radical agenda against women.

      • drdiddlybadger@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Or we could hit a double whammy of strengthining your right to privacy such that any anti abortion or anti trans care law becomes impossible to impose.

        A man can dream 😭