You're wrong and you are either misjudging or trying to deceive with this “back to the people” argument. You know damn well the senate is not representative of the “people” and holds the power of the legislative branch. And yeah, the imposition of religion on the country is at the heart of the repeal of Roe. Make no mistake these justices aren’t practicing juris prudence and if you think they are then you are the sucker in the room. What did this weird candidate tell you her platform was “Jesus guns babies” and what did the supreme give us?
Oh, I didn't say anything about the Senate. Don't think the Court did either. The court turned the decision back to the legislatures of the states. Could be some marginal role for the feds to try to use some tools they have to grease the wheels for abortion here and there but that's it.
I would actually disagree with that stance. As society we can respect and adhere to a certain standard but carve out exceptions without being hypocrites. For example, we want to give transgressors of the law a second chance after they have been punished and have shown remorse and repentance. Yet we as society do not really give second chances to pedophiles or certain other criminals. Does not make us hypocrites. It is just a reflection that life sometimes demands complex answers that are seemingly contradictory or antithetical to our moral convictions. I look at this entire topic like a spectrum. On the far end is the survival of the mother. Then further to the left the life of the unborn child. Then further left societal circumstances, further left personal circumstances, and on the extreme left wishes and wants. If the life of the mother is endangered then a termination of the pregnancy can be morally justified. However, whether the pregnant woman can or cannot take proper care of the unborn baby in the future does not have any moral bearing on whether the pregnancy can be aborted or not. That does not make the utter respect for life hypocritical. It actually shows respect for human life. On rape and other circumstances where a pregnancy originated from no choice of the mother I do indeed take the tough stance that an abortion cannot be morally justified on the grounds of the importance to preserve human life that trump the circumstances of the mother.
Really? Perhaps because you surround yourself with sluts? Every woman in my circle who does not and did not spread legs for every passing guy considers such women sluts. If as woman a pregnancy is not desirable or suitable timing wise when she should protect and enforce protection to be worn by her partners. That is what smart humans do. Stupid people gamble and take risks and never plan for the event of losing the gamble. Then they blame society and want others to pay. It all originated when sex became an act of self gratification outside of any marital relationship. A commodity. A quick release and act of escape. Or just an expression of drunken or drugged stupor.
Then not back to the people, back to the states. But no, it’s not stopping there. Now that abortion can be legislated the next move is a federal ban. If you think the right is going to stop here at the states and be happy you are mistaken. America with the Supreme Court in the driver’s seat:
Everything above the last paragraph is fine but my point is if you are going to claim the pro life mantle that carries a higher moral scrutiny.
You are pulling all sorts of things out of your arse that you think that I think. I will turn it around and say that if you and Elizabeth Warren and AOC think that the feds are just going to sweep in and usurp control with federal legislation and everyone is going to be happy then you are sadly mistaken. The states believe, with some good reasons, that this has been passed back to the states. I have said only that the Court has decided that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution and that it is a legislative matter. Beyond that the states and the feds need to duke it out and it is/could be a whole nuther set of of court cases. Well, there are always courts cases but you know what I mean. Key cases. Even if I were to agree with your assertion that it is for the feds to legislat (beyond some games they can play with feds powers around the edges) which I don't, then I still don't get your reasoning that it is for the Senate to decide. It would just be another law requiring Congressional approval as well and your team ain't lookin so strong there these days and for the next couple years, minimum. Your dem geniuses need to be careful about raising expectations about what Washington can do with this abortion thing and then have it turn out to be one more- out of many- areas where you can't get bullshit passed.