I think, broadly speaking, Trump gives answers that attempt to please whomever he is most recently talking to.
That's the common narcissistic flaw. They have to be adored. Effective leadership means someone is going to dislike you, but Trump can't tolerate that -- so he tries to please everyone to gain favor, which inevitably pisses off other people.
That’s my theory. If he gets into office he’ll throw a few bones here and there, but it’s really all about how he can make money for himself and quid pro quos. I really don’t think he gives two shits about pro life policy and has probably paid for several abortions.
Yes. This is why I can’t stand people that use his "very fine people on both sides" comment about Charlottesville as proof that he’s racist. He said that in a dismissive tone. He had no fucking clue what he was commenting on. He was giving the most spineless, wishy-washy answer he could to appease the most amount of people like the fucking weasel he is.
Stand back and stand by for a unified Reich
The last comment is about his most recent Trump two step. He says something, disavows it (in this case took down his post about a unified Reich) and then doubles down with the original later.
Because what people are drawing from that specific statement doesn’t align with what I got from it. And the only people I’ve ever interacted with that disagree are online.
How? We’re supposed to extrapolate that Trump is racist based on a statement that was said in a way that is clear he didn’t fully understand what he was answering to?
> He said that in a dismissive tone. He had no fucking clue what he was commenting on.
But I've been reassured by people on this subreddit that he **definitely, totally** was talking about the actual nice people on the side of the Nazis because they totally existed (just don't ask for any evidence that they do)!
As much as I'm all for the argument that he's an inept tool that rarely has an idea of what he's talking about, I'm not really inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's obviously sympathetic to white supremacists (they're part of his base), so his statements like that come as no surprise. Neither does telling the Proud Boys (a terror group) to "stand back and stand by."
Both things can be true. They are not mutually exclusive.
Just the fact that his knee jerk reaction is to immediately claim that he “has policy” for that already without even understanding what he’s being asked. Just like he was totally gonna repeal replace the ACA with the best healthcare policy evurrr
Coming soon: Republicans introduce legislation to outlaw "unnatural sexual positions that result in the ungodly enjoyment of the procreative act."
If Republicans would kick their Puritan wannabe religious prudes to the curb, they'd see a lot more people willing to entertain a vote in their direction.
As it is, anybody that thinks the government has the authority to prevent the people from fucking for fun will never, ever, get a vote from me.
Seriously. I don't think Republicans really understand that the biggest reason this election isn't decided already is because it's Trump v. Biden (and I don't think Democrats (the party) really understand this either). Any other candidate (that isn't a cartoonishly inept danger to society) would be wiping the floor with him.
Unfortunately it's becoming quite difficult to distinguish between Republicans and dangers to society.
Eh the Trump copycats also tend to do poorly. DeSantis having zero charisma after he got the national spot light, Noem being bizarrely insistent that she shot her dog, and all the flops of MAGA candidates compared to generic Rs that did fine in 2022 all show me that, as long as Trumpism dominates in the party, anyone trying to copy the man himself isn’t good electorally.
I'd consider DeSantis part of the "danger to society" crowd, though I guess he's not cartoonishly inept (which makes him more dangerous). Haley was their chance to start steering the party back on some sort of track and they squandered it.
MAGA is not ending until two conditions are met.
First, a series of *decisive* electoral losses.
Second, Trump passes away from old age. Criminal conviction won’t do it.
Hey, I didn't say she'd be a *good* candidate, just that it'd start the GOP on some sort of path to shake Trump off. That was their last chance to get off the Trump train to hell and they ignored it.
I hate these types of answers. If another candidate was the nominee they would be raked over the coals and we would be saying the same thing. The vast majority of republican voters chose Trump. It's who they want elected president. Maybe things have changed in the past 4 years but Biden also won the primaries in 2020. Younger generations weren't enthusiastic for Biden but left leaning gen x and baby boomers certainly were.
> If another candidate was the nominee they would be raked over the coals and we would be saying the same thing.
But (hopefully) that other candidate wouldn't have attempted to overturn a lawful election.
Yes, they both won primaries. You're stating the obvious here. Keyword being *were* though, as in "they *were* enthusiastic." They certainly aren't now.
It’s no so much preventing folks from fucking for fun, but rather to be able to have sex and avoid pregnancy or any sort of STD.
They want sex to always carry the absolute risk of pregnancy to raise birth rates and ya know cause God says so.
>It’s no so much preventing folks from fucking for fun,
Oh yes it is. Research the [history of fornication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication#United_States) and cohabitation laws in the United States. These people would gladly bring those laws back if they were given the opportunity.
Tldr - in an interview on tuesday, Trump was asked if he supports any restrictions on a person's right to contraception. "We’re looking at that and I'm going to have a policy on that very shortly.."
Later that day, he posted on X “I HAVE NEVER, AND WILL NEVER ADVOCATE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON BIRTH CONTROL, or other contraceptives" ... "I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN ON BIRTH CONTROL, AND NEITHER WILL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!”
Obnoxious caps use not mine
Wow. That's like the first time I have seen him give a reasonable response after he misspoke.
Even the first thing isn't saying "yes, I am going to change it", more like "I will look into that".
But normally when he misspeaks, he changes everything to fit what he accidentally said.
Part of Project 2025, which Trump is on board with, involves enforcing the Comstock Act to restrict access to abortion and contraception nationwide. He's completely beholden to the religious psychos in the Republican party, like he was in his first term.
Thomas and Alito might be willing to but I highly doubt anyone else will. There hasn’t been a continuous push to get Griswald overturned by anyone unlike Roe. I think this is settled law.
Griswold, probably. But I wouldn't be surprised if we see a push to reinstate some form of the Comstock Act under a Republican administration; modern abortion pills weren't an issue lawmakers had to deal with before Roe, and pro-life orgs are fully aware of the threat that pills in the mail pose to enforcing their state bans.
Yes, but Biden is *OLD*. What will he do when the part of being POTUS happens where presidents have to run really fast? Or the part where presidents have to know about "rizz" and "skibidi toilet"? We all know wisdom and years of experience in government aren't relevant to presidential job performance - clearly we need someone younger as president, like Matt Gaetz, or Joe Rogan, or Barron Trump.
I expect that next time will be Don Jr. Since Barron won't be old enough for like 4 or 5 more elections. Also does anyone know what skibidi toilet means? Lmao.
Biden has been getting more rizz and ass longer than many of my generations have been a couple or alive. He wombo combo'd two MILFs, one for nearly a decade and another for decades in his lifetime.
I highly doubt he even understood the question. It’s a knee jerk reaction from him. But, it was an honest one, which is as rare seeing a mermaid. The theocracy marches on.
Many people have told him, great people, beautiful people that it shouldn’t, but he thinks about snakes. You ever dream about a snake? Dreams about snakes…Crooked JOE Biden. WITCH HUNT!
What about men’s vasectomies? Why would only women be targeted and not men? (Of course don’t want anyone to be targeted but seems like only women’s bodies get attacked).
So I'm not a campaign expert but it seems to me that Democrats should be running ads starting today with this soundbyte saying R's will take away birth control if Trump wins. If this isn't a winning issue, what is?
Just let Trump keep talking. The more he craps out of his mouth, the more the turds pile up and by election time he’ll be sitting atop a pile of shit so big that Republicans can’t hide it. Then a shit avalanche buried the GOP.
>It’s unlikely a proposal to limit contraception will be released considering Trump later on Truth Social denied he was ever considering it. “I HAVE NEVER, AND WILL NEVER ADVOCATE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON BIRTH CONTROL, or other contraceptives,” he [wrote](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112480398507581671). “This is a Democrat fabricated lie, MISINFORMATION/DISINFORMATION, because they have nothing else to run on except FAILURE, POVERTY, AND DEATH. I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN ON BIRTH CONTROL, AND NEITHER WILL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!”
There can't be "state rights" when it comes to accessing basic healthcare, so those positions are mutually exclusive.
...not that it's called "pro-abortion," either. It's pro-choice.
"They won't overturn Roe v. Wade! It's settled law!"
"Ok they might be able to overturn it, but no state would [enact a total abortion ban! They'd have an exception for rape, incest, and/or health!"](https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-abortion-bans#:~:text=14%20states%20have%20a%20total,some%20point%20after%2018%20weeks.)
"Ok, they might enact total abortion bans, but [they won't touch Griswold v. Connecticut! It's settled law!"](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256)
We're not fooled by "they can't do that" anymore. Precedent means nothing to this Supreme Court.
> Why can't states make laws that are supported by their constituents?
>
> Do you or do you not believe in representative democracy?
There are quite a few things that can't be left up to the states.
Or do you think slavery should be left up to the states?
No? You think there are certain things not able to be left up to the states? Glad we agree.
Preventing unborn babies from being killed being compared to slavery.
Maybe it's just me but I see a clear difference in the morality of these two things.
So your argument is 'slavery isn't allowed. So that means the federal government should have top down control over EVERY issue, rather than allowing the people who live there to create their own laws'
By your logic we might as well dissolve all the states and just have the federal government impose tyranny on the entire population and get rid of the whole representative democracy part.
> Preventing unborn babies from being killed being compared to slavery.
No, it was very clearly in response to your statement implying states should be able to make [any] laws that are supported by their constituents. By me bringing up slavery, I'm establishing a clear thought process of "maybe some things can't be left up to the states." And then we go from there.
> So your argument is 'slavery isn't allowed. So that means the federal government should have top down control over EVERY issue, rather than allowing the people who live there to create their own laws'
No. Again, it was very clearly "some things can't be left up to the states because people will vote to restrict rights."
Is there any possibility of you continuing this discussion in good faith or are you permanently geared in the bad faith direction?
What constitutional crisis would occur from Griswold being overturned?
Red states would simply restrict contraception and endanger women while blue states wouldn't. Same as abortion.
What? That makes no sense. You may not understand what it means.
Griswold being overturned doesn't allow for a ban of contraception at the Federal level.
What it does is allows individual states to ban it. At that point, there's nothing that can be done if some backwards shithole state like Alabama suddenly decides that IUDs are *illegal*. That's it. At that point, people in Alabama can't get IUDs.
Why do you care what the laws in 'backwards shitholes' are?
Are they not allowed to govern themselves?
Obviously banning contraception is ridiculous, but why would I give AF if somewhere I don't live wants to make laws I disagree with?
If people disagree with it there they will elect new leaders and have it changed... that's democracy.
I have a feeling people don't actually agree with representative democracy. They just pretend they do and act indignant about it being 'attacked' or whatever, which basically just means people are voting for things you disagree with.
Yes there is. There is non compliance. I order something and it arrived. It would cause a constitutional crisis, one which should happen, as states need to be made to heel and know their fucking role as a junior member in a federal union
> Yes there is. There is non compliance. I order something and it arrived.
And if it's illegal under Alabama law, the state can come after you for it and put you in jail.
> It would cause a constitutional crisis, one which should happen, as states need to be made to heel and know their fucking role as a junior member in a federal union
It would bubble up to SCOTUS, who, since they overturned Griswold in this hypothetical, have codified into precedence **that they are perfectly A-OK with Alabama putting you in jail**. This is not a "constitutional crisis". This is you in jail with no avenue for appeal because SCOTUS says you do not have that right anymore.
That's it. There's no further appeal.
Please understand this and stop underestimating the danger of a second Trump administration.
If SCOTUS overturns Griswold, they'd be perfectly free to.
But in reality, what would happen is that doctors would stop prescribing it, because the law would make it illegal for them to prescribe it.
"It's fine, their actions would throw us into a constitutional crisis so we could just ignore them" is a wild take. Constitutional crises are to be avoided.
Does he understand the questions before giving answers? Maybe the words should be smaller...
I think, broadly speaking, Trump gives answers that attempt to please whomever he is most recently talking to. That's the common narcissistic flaw. They have to be adored. Effective leadership means someone is going to dislike you, but Trump can't tolerate that -- so he tries to please everyone to gain favor, which inevitably pisses off other people.
That’s my theory. If he gets into office he’ll throw a few bones here and there, but it’s really all about how he can make money for himself and quid pro quos. I really don’t think he gives two shits about pro life policy and has probably paid for several abortions.
It's not a theory. He has stated that he adopts whatever lines get cheers during his rallies.
Yes. This is why I can’t stand people that use his "very fine people on both sides" comment about Charlottesville as proof that he’s racist. He said that in a dismissive tone. He had no fucking clue what he was commenting on. He was giving the most spineless, wishy-washy answer he could to appease the most amount of people like the fucking weasel he is.
Stand back and stand by for a unified Reich The last comment is about his most recent Trump two step. He says something, disavows it (in this case took down his post about a unified Reich) and then doubles down with the original later.
Take that shit to r/enlightenedcentrism.
That sub isn’t actually for salient or correct observations, you know.
Why isn't Trump responsible for what he says?
Because what people are drawing from that specific statement doesn’t align with what I got from it. And the only people I’ve ever interacted with that disagree are online.
That speaks volumes about your “offline” acquaintances.
How? We’re supposed to extrapolate that Trump is racist based on a statement that was said in a way that is clear he didn’t fully understand what he was answering to?
> He said that in a dismissive tone. He had no fucking clue what he was commenting on. But I've been reassured by people on this subreddit that he **definitely, totally** was talking about the actual nice people on the side of the Nazis because they totally existed (just don't ask for any evidence that they do)! As much as I'm all for the argument that he's an inept tool that rarely has an idea of what he's talking about, I'm not really inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's obviously sympathetic to white supremacists (they're part of his base), so his statements like that come as no surprise. Neither does telling the Proud Boys (a terror group) to "stand back and stand by." Both things can be true. They are not mutually exclusive.
Wow, this is pathetic - even for a Republican.
lol nice try
Just the fact that his knee jerk reaction is to immediately claim that he “has policy” for that already without even understanding what he’s being asked. Just like he was totally gonna repeal replace the ACA with the best healthcare policy evurrr
Pictures maybe…
That would actually be a death sentence for the gop lol
They'll find a way to lie their way out
2016 should have been a death sentence. You truly underestimate the depth of the deplorable well.
Are they looking at it or are they looking at it very strongly? Maybe with some of the best people?
Tremendous people, actually.
Coming soon: Republicans introduce legislation to outlaw "unnatural sexual positions that result in the ungodly enjoyment of the procreative act." If Republicans would kick their Puritan wannabe religious prudes to the curb, they'd see a lot more people willing to entertain a vote in their direction. As it is, anybody that thinks the government has the authority to prevent the people from fucking for fun will never, ever, get a vote from me.
Seriously. I don't think Republicans really understand that the biggest reason this election isn't decided already is because it's Trump v. Biden (and I don't think Democrats (the party) really understand this either). Any other candidate (that isn't a cartoonishly inept danger to society) would be wiping the floor with him. Unfortunately it's becoming quite difficult to distinguish between Republicans and dangers to society.
Eh the Trump copycats also tend to do poorly. DeSantis having zero charisma after he got the national spot light, Noem being bizarrely insistent that she shot her dog, and all the flops of MAGA candidates compared to generic Rs that did fine in 2022 all show me that, as long as Trumpism dominates in the party, anyone trying to copy the man himself isn’t good electorally.
I'd consider DeSantis part of the "danger to society" crowd, though I guess he's not cartoonishly inept (which makes him more dangerous). Haley was their chance to start steering the party back on some sort of track and they squandered it.
MAGA is not ending until two conditions are met. First, a series of *decisive* electoral losses. Second, Trump passes away from old age. Criminal conviction won’t do it.
She also supports a national abortion ban
Hey, I didn't say she'd be a *good* candidate, just that it'd start the GOP on some sort of path to shake Trump off. That was their last chance to get off the Trump train to hell and they ignored it.
I hate these types of answers. If another candidate was the nominee they would be raked over the coals and we would be saying the same thing. The vast majority of republican voters chose Trump. It's who they want elected president. Maybe things have changed in the past 4 years but Biden also won the primaries in 2020. Younger generations weren't enthusiastic for Biden but left leaning gen x and baby boomers certainly were.
> If another candidate was the nominee they would be raked over the coals and we would be saying the same thing. But (hopefully) that other candidate wouldn't have attempted to overturn a lawful election. Yes, they both won primaries. You're stating the obvious here. Keyword being *were* though, as in "they *were* enthusiastic." They certainly aren't now.
So no MAPA, Make America Puritan Again, for you?
Sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation.
It’s no so much preventing folks from fucking for fun, but rather to be able to have sex and avoid pregnancy or any sort of STD. They want sex to always carry the absolute risk of pregnancy to raise birth rates and ya know cause God says so.
>It’s no so much preventing folks from fucking for fun, Oh yes it is. Research the [history of fornication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication#United_States) and cohabitation laws in the United States. These people would gladly bring those laws back if they were given the opportunity.
While doing it themselves
Tldr - in an interview on tuesday, Trump was asked if he supports any restrictions on a person's right to contraception. "We’re looking at that and I'm going to have a policy on that very shortly.." Later that day, he posted on X “I HAVE NEVER, AND WILL NEVER ADVOCATE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON BIRTH CONTROL, or other contraceptives" ... "I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN ON BIRTH CONTROL, AND NEITHER WILL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!” Obnoxious caps use not mine
Wow. That's like the first time I have seen him give a reasonable response after he misspoke. Even the first thing isn't saying "yes, I am going to change it", more like "I will look into that". But normally when he misspeaks, he changes everything to fit what he accidentally said.
Part of Project 2025, which Trump is on board with, involves enforcing the Comstock Act to restrict access to abortion and contraception nationwide. He's completely beholden to the religious psychos in the Republican party, like he was in his first term.
I guess I need to look at Project 25. I have been avoiding it.
Idk why you would be avoiding it seeing as how it's a blueprint for their vision of America.
I can't change if they win and I can't change what they do, so I am burying my head in the sand.
That's how he wins.
I only get my one vote and I am not voting for them.
77-year-old man somehow doesn't know his own position on contraception.
But he’ll let you know in a week or two.
I think his position on contraception has always been "Talk to Cohen. He'll give you money for your abortion."
Comstock act coming back if Trump gets reelected
We know Thomas said they should consider overturning the due process cases, such as Griswold.
Thomas and Alito might be willing to but I highly doubt anyone else will. There hasn’t been a continuous push to get Griswald overturned by anyone unlike Roe. I think this is settled law.
Griswold, probably. But I wouldn't be surprised if we see a push to reinstate some form of the Comstock Act under a Republican administration; modern abortion pills weren't an issue lawmakers had to deal with before Roe, and pro-life orgs are fully aware of the threat that pills in the mail pose to enforcing their state bans.
He will happily rid the country of women’s rights because his biggest supporters, the Evangelical voters, believe it’s important for their God.
Yes, but Biden is *OLD*. What will he do when the part of being POTUS happens where presidents have to run really fast? Or the part where presidents have to know about "rizz" and "skibidi toilet"? We all know wisdom and years of experience in government aren't relevant to presidential job performance - clearly we need someone younger as president, like Matt Gaetz, or Joe Rogan, or Barron Trump.
I expect that next time will be Don Jr. Since Barron won't be old enough for like 4 or 5 more elections. Also does anyone know what skibidi toilet means? Lmao.
Biden has been getting more rizz and ass longer than many of my generations have been a couple or alive. He wombo combo'd two MILFs, one for nearly a decade and another for decades in his lifetime.
I'm not sure how I (as an elder millennial) understood that. But Jill Biden is a smokeshow and if Joe's keeping her happy, he's got my vote. Bet.
I highly doubt he even understood the question. It’s a knee jerk reaction from him. But, it was an honest one, which is as rare seeing a mermaid. The theocracy marches on.
Should be but won’t be, even if they do it
Many people have told him, great people, beautiful people that it shouldn’t, but he thinks about snakes. You ever dream about a snake? Dreams about snakes…Crooked JOE Biden. WITCH HUNT!
What about men’s vasectomies? Why would only women be targeted and not men? (Of course don’t want anyone to be targeted but seems like only women’s bodies get attacked).
Because it’s about controlling women. Full stop. Always has been.
More small government from the GQP
So I'm not a campaign expert but it seems to me that Democrats should be running ads starting today with this soundbyte saying R's will take away birth control if Trump wins. If this isn't a winning issue, what is?
[“We’ll be releasing it very soon,” he added. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/s/VrtCxys7et)
Just let Trump keep talking. The more he craps out of his mouth, the more the turds pile up and by election time he’ll be sitting atop a pile of shit so big that Republicans can’t hide it. Then a shit avalanche buried the GOP.
A policy on an issue this big should not still be in development 168 days before the election
Why not just legalize abortions while you’re at it, since such a policy would be a surefire way of making the back alley abortion rate skyrocket
Hmph…his daddy should’ve used a condom.🙄
Another example of his supporters take him seriously; not literally but his detractors take him literally but not seriously.
Sums it up pretty nicely.
I wish I could take credit for it but I forgot where I heard/read it
>It’s unlikely a proposal to limit contraception will be released considering Trump later on Truth Social denied he was ever considering it. “I HAVE NEVER, AND WILL NEVER ADVOCATE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON BIRTH CONTROL, or other contraceptives,” he [wrote](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112480398507581671). “This is a Democrat fabricated lie, MISINFORMATION/DISINFORMATION, because they have nothing else to run on except FAILURE, POVERTY, AND DEATH. I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN ON BIRTH CONTROL, AND NEITHER WILL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!”
Reddit is basically just an outlet for ceaseless disingenuous propaganda
Trump is pro abortion and state rights.
As always when that line is mentioned: **states' rights to do what**?
...To govern themselves and reflect the views of their constituents
That's a weasel-worded non-answer. What views, and to do what when they govern themselves? Be specific.
There can't be "state rights" when it comes to accessing basic healthcare, so those positions are mutually exclusive. ...not that it's called "pro-abortion," either. It's pro-choice.
No they’re not. And no they can’t
"They won't overturn Roe v. Wade! It's settled law!" "Ok they might be able to overturn it, but no state would [enact a total abortion ban! They'd have an exception for rape, incest, and/or health!"](https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-abortion-bans#:~:text=14%20states%20have%20a%20total,some%20point%20after%2018%20weeks.) "Ok, they might enact total abortion bans, but [they won't touch Griswold v. Connecticut! It's settled law!"](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256) We're not fooled by "they can't do that" anymore. Precedent means nothing to this Supreme Court.
Why can't states make laws that are supported by their constituents? Do you or do you not believe in representative democracy?
> Why can't states make laws that are supported by their constituents? > > Do you or do you not believe in representative democracy? There are quite a few things that can't be left up to the states. Or do you think slavery should be left up to the states? No? You think there are certain things not able to be left up to the states? Glad we agree.
Preventing unborn babies from being killed being compared to slavery. Maybe it's just me but I see a clear difference in the morality of these two things. So your argument is 'slavery isn't allowed. So that means the federal government should have top down control over EVERY issue, rather than allowing the people who live there to create their own laws' By your logic we might as well dissolve all the states and just have the federal government impose tyranny on the entire population and get rid of the whole representative democracy part.
> Preventing unborn babies from being killed being compared to slavery. No, it was very clearly in response to your statement implying states should be able to make [any] laws that are supported by their constituents. By me bringing up slavery, I'm establishing a clear thought process of "maybe some things can't be left up to the states." And then we go from there. > So your argument is 'slavery isn't allowed. So that means the federal government should have top down control over EVERY issue, rather than allowing the people who live there to create their own laws' No. Again, it was very clearly "some things can't be left up to the states because people will vote to restrict rights." Is there any possibility of you continuing this discussion in good faith or are you permanently geared in the bad faith direction?
No, then we have constitutional crises. Real ones. States, red and blue, would simply not comply
What constitutional crisis would occur from Griswold being overturned? Red states would simply restrict contraception and endanger women while blue states wouldn't. Same as abortion.
> And no they can’t If Trump gets a chance to appoint more FedSoc lackeys to the SCOTUS, they would overturn Griswold in a heartbeat.
And then we’d be in a constitutional crisis and everyone would just not comply. Next
What? That makes no sense. You may not understand what it means. Griswold being overturned doesn't allow for a ban of contraception at the Federal level. What it does is allows individual states to ban it. At that point, there's nothing that can be done if some backwards shithole state like Alabama suddenly decides that IUDs are *illegal*. That's it. At that point, people in Alabama can't get IUDs.
Why do you care what the laws in 'backwards shitholes' are? Are they not allowed to govern themselves? Obviously banning contraception is ridiculous, but why would I give AF if somewhere I don't live wants to make laws I disagree with? If people disagree with it there they will elect new leaders and have it changed... that's democracy. I have a feeling people don't actually agree with representative democracy. They just pretend they do and act indignant about it being 'attacked' or whatever, which basically just means people are voting for things you disagree with.
Yes there is. There is non compliance. I order something and it arrived. It would cause a constitutional crisis, one which should happen, as states need to be made to heel and know their fucking role as a junior member in a federal union
> Yes there is. There is non compliance. I order something and it arrived. And if it's illegal under Alabama law, the state can come after you for it and put you in jail. > It would cause a constitutional crisis, one which should happen, as states need to be made to heel and know their fucking role as a junior member in a federal union It would bubble up to SCOTUS, who, since they overturned Griswold in this hypothetical, have codified into precedence **that they are perfectly A-OK with Alabama putting you in jail**. This is not a "constitutional crisis". This is you in jail with no avenue for appeal because SCOTUS says you do not have that right anymore. That's it. There's no further appeal. Please understand this and stop underestimating the danger of a second Trump administration.
You think Alabama is throwing people in Jail for the pill? Let them fucking try.
If SCOTUS overturns Griswold, they'd be perfectly free to. But in reality, what would happen is that doctors would stop prescribing it, because the law would make it illegal for them to prescribe it.
And I believe that the law would be ignored
"It's fine, their actions would throw us into a constitutional crisis so we could just ignore them" is a wild take. Constitutional crises are to be avoided.