13% of Dems say protecting abortion top priority, compared to 1% in 2021

[SugarDaddy1]

Democrats’ interest in protecting abortion as a top issue for the federal government has grown substantially over the past year, according to a poll from the Associated Press (AP)-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The December poll found 13 percent of Democrats say protecting abortion is a top priority in 2022, compared to less than one percent who found it a significant issue in 2021, and the three percent who identified it as a priority in 2020.

Source

 

[GothTalk]

I wonder what it is they think makes abortion a federal issue.

 

[Rightguide]

I wonder what it is they think makes abortion a federal issue.

Or with only 13%, a top issue.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I wonder what it is they think makes abortion a federal issue.

Common fucking sense. Honestly states rights are a bullshit plan set for people in a different era.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Common fucking sense. Honestly states rights are a bullshit plan set for people in a different era.

Known commonly as the "Constitutional Era."

 

[Rightguide]

Common fucking sense. Honestly states rights are a bullshit plan set for people in a different era.

Your ignorance of American history and law is obvious. So much so. you should probably just shut up and go back to school, a real school.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I wonder what it is they think makes abortion a federal issue.

That pesky Roe v. Wade, which you are not man enough to acknowlege.

Casey v. PlannedParenthood too.

 

[pecksniff]

Just curious when pro lifers consider a fetus to be a human being. At conception? Before conception? Sperm is alive, it's an independent single-celled organism.

Every sperm is sacred.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

That pesky Roe v. Wade, which you are not man enough to acknowlege.

Casey v. PlannedParenthood too.

Apparently, amendments mean nothing to constitutionalists.

 

[pecksniff]

Your ignorance of American history and law is obvious. So much so. you should probably just shut up and go back to school, a real school.

A real school will teach that states' rights are an anachronism.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

That pesky Roe v. Wade, which you are not man enough to acknowlege.

Casey v. PlannedParenthood too.

And even then, there's no there there. Those cases were not based on anything in the Constitution.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

A real school will teach that states' rights are an anachronism.

They are still the Law of the Land, unless the 10th has been repealed.

 

[pecksniff]

They are still the Law of the Land, unless the 10th has been repealed.

Nobody even knows what the 10th is supposed to mean. No major court decision has ever been based on it.

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the powers of the federal government are limited to those powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be a truism by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified".[16]

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Nobody even knows what the 10th is supposed to mean. No major court decision has ever been based on it.

That line just gets funnier every time I readit. Of course they know what it means. Even the big-government guys of the day knew what it meant, and it meant that if there wasn't an enumerated powe for it, there wasn't a way for the feds to do it.

Jesus, did you never read The Federalist Papers?

 

[ll74]

Protecting anyone's rights should be high priority.for everyone, but certainly for Democrats.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Protecting anyone's rights should be high priority.for everyone, but certainly for Democrats.

The right to own slaves, too?

 

[ll74]

The right to own slaves, too?

Lmao....oh .ya got me! ¯\(°_o)/¯

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Lmao....oh .ya got me! ¯\(°_o)/¯

Just because you couch something as "the right to..." doesn't mean that the right actually exists.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Apparently, amendments mean nothing to constitutionalists.

Protecting anyone's rights should be high priority.for everyone, but certainly for Democrats.

The right to own slaves, too?

THE 13TH

 

[pecksniff]

That line just gets funnier every time I readit. Of course they know what it means. Even the big-government guys of the day knew what it meant, and it meant that if there wasn't an enumerated powe for it, there wasn't a way for the feds to do it.

Jesus, did you never read The Federalist Papers?

The Federalist Papers argued against having a bill of rights at all.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

THE 13TH

Yes, the 13th. It took away peoples' right to own slaves, did it not?

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The Federalist Papers argued against having a bill of rights at all.

Indeed it did, persuasively, I might add. I'll ask you the same question that Hamilton did in it: Absent the 1A protection of the free press, does the federal government have the power to regulate what the press says and prints?

 

[pecksniff]

Indeed it did, persuasively, I might add. I'll ask you the same question that Hamilton did in it: Absent the 1A protection of the free press, does the federal government have the power to regulate what the press says and prints?

President Adams certainly seemed to think so.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

President Adams certainly seemed to think so.

I didn't ask President Adams. I'm asking you.

 

[pecksniff]

Whatever this change means, it means nothing good for the GOP's electoral prospects.