You’re too conservative. Sound like a boomer.

If a billionaire supports it, it’s not good for you. Unless you’re a billionaire. Maybe a millionaire.

Talking about Supreme Court. They are not elected, they are appointed. For sure, lots of corruption in campaigning. You know what’s more corrupt? Campaigning for an audience of one. You may not call it campaigning because it happens behind closed doors but these judges don’t just get appointed based on their merit.

Everybody always says eugenics and can’t fathom an in between. That’s like saying socialism is a slippery slope to communism.

I can understand having trauma related to the topic, but this is not a productive way to communicate with people. You don’t know anything about me.

That’s what the founding fathers thought but they end up being biased to whomever gets them the seat. Additionally, if the country decides to become more progressive or conservative, judges either have to be flexible based on public opinion, or they need term limits to make room for change. It’s broken.

I love this. We shouldn’t be beholden to the president to select judges if and when they die or resign. Limit their terms and let people elect them. Take note US.

That’s a huge leap. Because they can’t impregnate a child they’d be more likely to kill them?

We have forced sterilization? Why do you assume I want to sterilize queer and PoC communities? Nothing in my comment said that. That’s a huge leap.

Fulfill the urges to impregnate a child? What about the baby? If we’re concerned about repeat offending then just kill them. Rehabilitation of pedophilic rapists is mostly unsuccessful.

I support incentivized temporary sterilization for men and women, and forcible permanent sterilization of men and women in certain circumstances (e.g. a man rapes and impregnates a child).

Good sign for our elections. Things are leaning left.

I’ve always felt it should be federally legal, but much of the country doesn’t so not possible now and state laws are a protection. Congress could do things to make it legal but really it’s up to the Supreme Court and not much power there.

Throughout history implementing power to the states has been a stepping stone towards nationwide laws. We could see a time when the government decides to make abortion illegal across the country. In the event that happens, power to the states is a good thing until the majority sentiment shifts towards making it federally legal again.

Abortion should be legal federally. It is not and we’re beholden to the Supreme Court. If the majority of the country wanted abortion to be illegal, we’ll be begging for states’ rights.

Slavery is the same as abortion pills? Wow. Regarding rights, more than half of the US is women. Many women also don’t support abortions. They have the same right to voting for what they want in the state they live.

Mail order abortion pills.

Nobody will have to travel out of country for an abortion. That’s a moot point based on fear mongering.

I was indeed incorrect about people being jailed related to abortion bans. Those laws and cases are stupid. Their laws should only apply to access and not after-care.

I’m suggesting we could take a more granular approach to some laws at a federal level. Not all.

The 2nd amendment was not intended for only militias, but also individuals. Point being, would you not find power to the states appealing in that regard?

I think people have relied on the federal government to protect them too much and let their individual states become radicalized. Now they have to be involved in effecting change within the state they live. In the long term I think this is a good step toward more progressive state governments.

By giving power to the states, you will always have some states that allow abortions and some that do not, hence why we have the problem to begin with. Since each state is part of the same country, access to abortions will always be available, albeit at the cost of traveling to a nearby state.

There was a lot of fear of people going to jail or getting in trouble for doing this, which hasn’t happened.

We’re too big of a country to not take a more tribal approach to laws. Imagine if the tables were turned and we could decide which states had access to guns. I would think many would be in favor of this.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Dems want you to believe that power to the states will eliminate access to abortions, when it seems this data shows that regardless of the overruling, abortions are still accessible. People aren’t getting fired up because access is being limited. People are getting fired up because they think access is being eliminated for people in certain states.

It hurts Republicans because they didn’t get exactly what they want, but I think it hurts Democrats more because it minimizes one of their greatest scare tactics.

fair, but it’s not the catastrophe that dems want you to believe so you vote for them.

that’s an interesting interpretation. enjoy the democrat circle jerk. it’s actually saying that power to the states isn’t as bad as people thought it would be.

It’ll be interesting to see the behavioral science effect of this even if it’s not requiring the signee to take a specific action. They could start putting out data, albeit inaccurate, that people are leaning right and that might cause uneducated voters to make similar decisions.