207

The Next Republican President Has a Plan to Ban Abortion Nationwide Without Congress (slate.com)

submitted 1 year ago by spaceghoti@lemmy.one to c/politics@lemmy.world

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The story behind Heritage’s claim begins in the 19th century, with the passage of a sexual purity law that was interpreted to make it a crime to mail or receive items intended, designed, or adapted for abortion. Exactly what the Comstock Act said or meant, not least when it came to abortion, was unclear at the time it passed. States were then, for the first time, criminalizing abortion early in pregnancy, with life exceptions. Members of Congress seemed unsure whether the act covered “lawful” or medically indicated abortion.

In the years since, courts have interpreted the Comstock Act not as a flat ban on all abortions. By the 1930s, courts were interpreting the law as having a sort of implied health exception that applied to physicians and those transacting with them. No one has mentioned the statute in the context of abortion for decades.

top 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 36 points 1 year ago

We're heading towards Columbia from BioShock Infinite, and I don't like it.

[-] Bdtrngl@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

We're fast tracking to 1930s Germany and I don't like that.

[-] macaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 year ago

We’re hurtling towards The Handmaid’s Tale and I don’t like that.

[-] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 year ago

Start punching nazis. I’d like that

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

We are turning into Venus, and I don't like that.

[-] DrPop@lemmy.one 35 points 1 year ago

Why are we basing our laws around healthcare on an act made in the 1800s?

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 34 points 1 year ago

Because it accurately represents the world they want us all to live in.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Same reason we base our gun laws on a constitutional amendment made when guns were muzzle-loaders.

[-] snownyte@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

Then the next Republican president after this Republican president will "Have a plan to extort and rip away LGBTQ rights once and for all without approval" and then the next Republican president after that one will have another plan to expand religious influence across the country. Any step they'll take, to send us back to a time where in their world view, women were just good at popping babies, gays and blacks are the butt of jokes all of the time, God and only one God was all we needed and the idea of being smarter than another is just a crime in of itself.

It's not Idiocracy, people. It's true damnation in reality.

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

These people should not be allowed to speak in public.

[-] Melody@lemmy.one 2 points 7 months ago

The best way to prevent misuse of the Comstock Act is to hit them where it hurts. Find out what items their funders sell or trade in the most; then find logical ways to link it to sex or abortion.

Pretty soon you'll gum up all trade and they will cry for mercy.

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

See LIBTARDS! It WAS a State's Rights Issue! And if I as a Republican could read I would STILL call it a State's Right issue because I HATE women!

this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023

207 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19097 readers

2988 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News