Author Topic: Pence, Other GOP Candidates Split on Abortion Law Over Federal Vs. State  (Read 417 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,117
Pence, Other GOP Candidates Split on Abortion Law Over Federal Vs. State

By Ward Clark
August 12, 2023

While campaigning at the Iowa State Fair on Saturday, GOP presidential hopeful and former Vice President Mike Pence stated his support for a federal 15-week abortion ban—and that he intends to bring up the split among the candidates during the August debate:

Quote
On a campaign visit to the Iowa State Fair, Pence told reporters he expects to call out former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for not supporting national abortion restrictions when the candidates meet on the debate stage in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, later this month. Pence has said he would sign a federal 15-week abortion ban into law if elected president.

“My former running mate, the governor of Florida and others are suggesting that the Supreme Court returned the question of abortion to the states,” Pence said, referencing the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended federal protections for the procedure.

“I truly do believe it’s vitally important that we seize the opportunity at the national level to advance protections for the right to life, and I’ll do so as president,” he added. “This is a really big issue. It will be on the stage in Milwaukee.”

The actual decision in the case Pence refers to, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, would seem to argue that the matter has, in fact, been returned to the several states. And that’s where it belongs if the Tenth Amendment has anything to say about it.

Dobbs states in the conclusion:

*  *  *

Source:  https://redstate.com/wardclark/2023/08/12/pence-other-gop-candidates-split-on-abortion-law-over-federal-vs-state-n791825


Online libertybele

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,015
  • Gender: Female
Pence is only adding fuel to the fire.  SCOTUS handed states the abortion issue and making it a federal issue will likely bring us right back to where we were with Roe v. Wade.
Romans 12:16-21

Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly, do not claim to be wiser than you are.  Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.  If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all…do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Online LMAO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,101
  • Gender: Male
Back in the day when I became a Ron Paul supporter, he had no issues with declaring abortion a state issue?

Why does the current GOP struggle with this issue?
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.

Barry Goldwater

http://www.usdebtclock.org

My Avatar is my adult autistic son Tommy

Online Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,117
Back in the day when I became a Ron Paul supporter, he had no issues with declaring abortion a state issue?

Why does the current GOP struggle with this issue?

No idea.

Online libertybele

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,015
  • Gender: Female
Back in the day when I became a Ron Paul supporter, he had no issues with declaring abortion a state issue?

Why does the current GOP struggle with this issue?

The GOP is not united on this issue or other issues. 

SCOTUS ruled and they are trying to over turn that ruling or misleading people about that ruling in order to get votes.
Romans 12:16-21

Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly, do not claim to be wiser than you are.  Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.  If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all…do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,001
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"

SCOTUS ruled and they are trying to over turn that ruling or misleading people about that ruling in order to get votes.

The Supreme Court did not rule that abortion could only be regulated by the States.  It just said that it wasn't regulated by the Constitution.  The question of whether or not it can be regulated by federal legislation was not addressed.

I think that if you ignore commerce clause precedent, it's clearly a state issue.  But if you look at how the commerce clause power has been expanded, then it should be subject to federal restrictions.

I say that because of all the blue state governors affirmatively inviting and supporting those seeking abortions across state lines.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2023, 06:23:10 pm by Maj. Bill Martin »

Online libertybele

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,015
  • Gender: Female
The Supreme Court did not rule that abortion could only be regulated by the States.  It just said that it wasn't regulated by the Constitution.  The question of whether or not it can be regulated by federal legislation was not addressed.

I think that if you ignore commerce clause precedent, it's clearly a state issue.  But if you look at how the commerce clause power has been expanded, then it should be subject to federal restrictions.

I say that because of all the blue state governors affirmatively inviting and supporting those seeking abortions across state lines.

The SCOTUS overturned the 'Constitutional right' to abortion.  It is no longer a federal issue and states have reacted accordingly.

I don't see where the commerce clause power has been expanded -- then again I'm not a lawyer.  I'm relaying my understanding after reading many articles and the opinions.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-wipes-away-constitutional-guarantee-abortion-rights-over-rcna18718
Romans 12:16-21

Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly, do not claim to be wiser than you are.  Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.  If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all…do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,001
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
The SCOTUS overturned the 'Constitutional right' to abortion.  It is no longer a federal issue and states have reacted accordingly.

Taken literally, that's correct, but only because there was no federal law in place at the time of Dobbs.  But there is nothing in Dobbs itself barring the federal government from passing a law on abortion.

Quote
I don't see where the commerce clause power has been expanded -- then again I'm not a lawyer.  I'm relaying my understanding after reading many articles and the opinions.

The initial understanding of the commerce clause was that it only regulated the movement of goods between states.  Over time, it was expanded to include any economic activity within a state that impacted interstate commerce, which is a far broader definition.

The most infamous) commerce clause case that expanded that power is Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the federal government could regulate the growing of crops on a farmer's own land, even if he never sold any of it, based on the idea that because he was growing crops for feed, he wouldn't be purchasing them on the market, and him NOT purchasing feed would have an impact on interstate commerce.    There have been recent attempts to reign in that decision, but the clause is still interpreted far too broadly.

Quote
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-wipes-away-constitutional-guarantee-abortion-rights-over-rcna18718

If you reread that article, you will notice multiple references to passing federal legislation in response to Dobbs, and no claim that Dobbs itself would prohibit that.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37,029
The Supreme Court did not rule that abortion could only be regulated by the States.  It just said that it wasn't regulated by the Constitution.  The question of whether or not it can be regulated by federal legislation was not addressed.

Correct.  Congress has always had the power to enact abortion legislation.  But Democrats have been reluctant to do so, fearing political retribution, judgment from the Almighty, or both.  That's why they get the Court to legislate for them.  All this time, they could have passed a federal abortion rights bill.  They didn't.  But now with Dobbs, they may try.

Republicans are playing into their hands by pushing federal bans.  The Conservative approach is to leave it to the States.  Unfortunately, we have candidates like Trump and Pence who want to open the door for federalizing abortion.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.     -Dwight Eisenhower-

"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."     -Ayn Rand-

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37,029
The SCOTUS overturned the 'Constitutional right' to abortion.  It is no longer a federal issue and states have reacted accordingly.

No.  SCOTUS simply said that there was no Constitutional basis for Roe.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.     -Dwight Eisenhower-

"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."     -Ayn Rand-