Alabama Passes Bill Banning Abortion

[spathiphyllum]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48275795

How awful.

[hereIam]

I think this will be blocked though.

[spathiphyllum]

It seems many others are on that wave length HereIAm.. Just why try pass the bill anyhow?

"The law includes a ban on abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Supporters say they expect the law to be blocked in court but hope that the appeals process will bring it before the Supreme Court."

[Zacs-Master]

Alabama. A Trump heartland (or it was in 2016).

[spathiphyllum]

I'd be totally embarrassed to be a senator in Alabama at the moment.

[Mamyalynne]

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Current-Affairs/Question1658449.html

[hereIam]

I really don't think they will win spath.

[spathiphyllum]

Sorry JIM! I didn't see your thread.

[JF85]

The sponsors of this action are the ones who are funding Tommy Robinson. Alabama now, UK is not safe in the future.

[naomi24]

Who are the sponsors?

A backward step.

[jim360]

To be fair, spath, I'd put my thread in a quieter part of AB (deliberately, to try and promote one of the subcategories). Easy to miss.

I think the deliberate point of passing this law is *because* it will be blocked. But it would be blocked at, say, a State level, then a Circuit Courts level, then all the way to the US Supreme Court. The stated objective is to force this to the courts (ideally when the liberal Justice Ginsberg pops her clogs, too*), so that Roe v. Wade can be overturned. It's cynical and despicable lawmaking.


*This was actually implied in an interview by one of the senators who voted for this.

[spathiphyllum]

Ah No worries Jim, still sorry i missed it.

So they're passing a bill with the anticipation it gets blocked?

[jim360]

Yes.

[naomi24]

Now Missouri.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48296927

[spathiphyllum]

Well they will shoot emselfs in the foot if it doesn't get blocked.

[Spicerack]

Isn't this how democracy is supposed to work?

[jim360]

Yes and no. There's nothing undemocratic about the decision, it is true -- although strictly speaking it's unconstitutional as long as Roe v. Wade is in force.

But when democracies make decisions like this -- which in particular is horrifying, as it is a minority of men imposing their morality on a majority of women -- then you could well argue that there are some areas where the people shouldn't be allowed to vote on without universal consent.

[Spicerack]

Slippery slope, there, jim.
Of course, you have every right to protest decisions you don't agree with.

[Spicerack]

I've got a long list. ;-)

[jim360]

// Slippery slope, there, jim. //

It doesn't have to be. It's already established in the US that some issues are legislatively untouchable -- at least as long as the Constitution covers it. Why shouldn't abortion be such an issue? And what slippery slope can you imagine would be started if you allow women access to proper healthcare when they need it?

[Spicerack]

Not clear, perhaps. I meant some, non criminal, people being allowed to vote and others not was a slippery slope. Who gets to decide who's in and who's out?
Probably wouldn't be 'nice' liberal people all the time.
Don't want to derail the thread if that's what I'm doing any further.