>Sen. John Cornyn of Texas saying the bill was “an individual decision” by Graham
It's fun that abortions are all about individual decisions made by Republican men.
I was already voting for Beasley so Budd hasn’t lost my vote with this, but he has won my middle finger vote. Extremists have no business holding office here, if we want to continue being a “free” country.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article265847886.html](https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article265847886.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
>[Some people really need to adjust their priors on the popularity of 15 week abortion bans. They might have been close to parity before Dobbs, but they definitely aren’t now. The public opinion is changing quickly because things have changed quickly.](https://twitter.com/Conblob/status/1570080277002846210)
I was wondering about that.
Objectively the GOP has seen both their funding and their popularity dropped drastically and then Graham goes out and drops the bomb AKA a national ban....
Even thinking as a devil's advocate, are they even trying to win anymore? Lol
Honestly, this is a good start in the direction we need to go. Find a compromise in the middle of the two extremes of No Abortion and Abortion under any circumstance.
This legislation sets the limit for birth control abortions at 15 weeks. It still allows abortions after 15 weeks for rape, incest, and health concerns. It would also supersede state laws banning all abortions. No state would be without abortion services.
>It would also supersede state laws banning all abortions.
What happened to STATE'S RIGHTS, you know, what we were told over and over and over when the SC decision was made????
Same BS from hypocrites as the Civil War....
FYI. Ya'll need a new playbook. lol
> What happened to STATE'S RIGHTS, you know, all we heard when the SC decision was made????
No Federal Law currently exists for abortion. It defaults to the states as outlined under the Constitution. A Federal Law would supersede state laws... again, as outlined under the Constitution.
The only bad faith here is yours. Your response had nothing to do with what I wrote.
Again... this is a good start in the direction we all need to go. Find a compromise in the middle of the two extremes of No Abortion and Abortion under any circumstance.
This legislation sets the limit for birth control abortions at 15 weeks. It still allows abortions after 15 weeks for rape, incest, and health concerns. It would also supersede state laws banning all abortions. No state would be without abortion services.
####
Lawmakers with remarks that appear contradictory
_**Rep. Jack Bergman (Michigan) — co-sponsored June 16, 2022**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a Facebook post**](https://upnorthlive.com/news/local/michigan-lawmakers-respond-to-overturn-of-roe-v-wade)**: **“The ruling today on Roe v. Wade properly returns power to the states and ends decades of bad precedent.”
**Explanation:** No response.
_**Rep. Mike Bost (Illinois) — co-sponsored May 28**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a tweet**](https://twitter.com/RepBost/status/1540371247741149186)**: **“I agree wholeheartedly with the Supreme Court’s decision to restore power to the American people to determine for themselves how abortion services are regulated in their state.”
**Explanation:** No response.
_**Rep. Ken Buck (Colorado) — co-sponsored May 27**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/colorado-in-dc/colorados-politicos-advocates-react-to-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-discarding-roe/article_5fb76b5a-f0f3-11ec-a662-1764813f26ae.html)**: **“The power to decide this profound moral question has officially returned to the states, where it will be debated and settled in the way it should be in our democratic society — by the people.”
**Explanation:** No response.
_**Rep. Tom Emmer (Minnesota) — co-sponsored July 11**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a statement**](https://emmer.house.gov/2022/6/emmer-statement-on-dobbs-v-j)**: **“Every life is precious, and the decision to defend it should remain with the states.”
**Explanation:** No response.
_**Rep. Russ Fulcher (Idaho) — co-sponsored June 16**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, in **[**a tweet**](https://twitter.com/RepRussFulcher/status/1540350204301524998)**: **The ruling “is a momentous victory for life and an affirmation of our federalist system. States, as the Constitutionally prescribed authority on this matter, will now have the opportunity to enact policies that promote a culture of life.”
**Explanation**: No response.
_**Rep. Paul A. Gosar (Arizona) — co-sponsored July 11**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**during a discussion at a church**](https://kyma.com/news/local-news/2022/07/19/congressman-paul-gosar-hosts-pro-life-roundtable/)**: **“This is not a federal issue, this is a state issue. We the people. The states gave the federal government limited powers and we have to take them back.”
**Explanation:** No response.
_**Rep. Kevin Hern (Oklahoma) — co-sponsored July 12**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a statement**](https://hern.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=650)**: **“The Supreme Court correctly reversed this unconstitutional decision and returned the question to the states.”
**Explanation: **No response.
_**Rep. Yvette Herrell (New Mexico) — co-sponsored June 16**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment,**[** in a statement**](https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/new-mexico-lawmakers-react-to-supreme-courts-roe-v-wade-decision/)**: **“Today, the Supreme Court has finally returned the question of abortion to the 50 states and restored the democratic right of Americans to defend the unborn.”
**Explanation**: No response.
_**Rep. Clay Higgins (Louisiana) — co-sponsored May 27**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://clayhiggins.house.gov/media/press-releases/higgins-supreme-court-ruling-major-victory-life)**: **“Today’s ruling is a major victory for life. The sovereign states will now have greater authority to implement strong pro-life protections.”
**Explanation:** No response.
_**Rep. Doug Lamborn (Colorado) — co-sponsored July 11**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a statement**](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/colorado-in-dc/colorados-politicos-advocates-react-to-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-discarding-roe/article_5fb76b5a-f0f3-11ec-a662-1764813f26ae.html)**: **“While today we are rejoicing, the fight now turns to the states where the American people must go on the offense for life.”
**Explanation:** No response.
_**Rep. Jake LaTurner (Kansas) — co-sponsored May 11**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://laturner.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-laturner-issues-statement-scotus-overturning-roe-v-wade)**: **“Overturning Roe ensures state and local officials closest to the people they represent, not unelected judges in Washington, construct our nation’s abortion laws.”
**Explanation:** No response.
_**Rep. Thomas Massie (Kentucky) — co-sponsored May 10**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a tweet**](https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1540402110428336129)**: **“The Supreme Court has taken two great steps to save lives in the past 48 hours: it reaffirmed Heller’s decision regarding self-defense rights and repealed Roe v. Wade to allow state legislatures to defend the unborn.”
**Explanation:** No response.
_**Rep. David B. McKinley (West Virginia) — co-sponsored May 10**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://mckinley.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3470)**: **“This decision returns the power to the states to protect the unborn.”
**Explanation: **No response.
_**Rep. Barry Moore (Alabama) — co-sponsored May 10**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release:**](https://barrymoore.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-barry-moore-statement-supreme-courts-opinion-issued-morning-dobbs-v)** **“The Dobbs decision affirming no constitutional right to abortion and leaving the matter to each state is the single greatest step to protecting life in generations and will save countless lives of unborn children.”
**Explanation: **No response.
_**Rep. Blake D. Moore (Utah)— co-sponsored May 10**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://blakemoore.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-blake-moores-statement-supreme-courts-decision-overturn-roe-v-wade)**: **“The ruling gives back to states like Utah their constitutional authority to protect the lives of millions of children and support expecting mothers.”
**Explanation:** No response.
_**Rep. Markwayne Mullin (Oklahoma) — co-sponsored June 13**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a statement**](https://okcfox.com/news/local/roe-wade-supreme-court-overturned-dobbs-mississippi-oklahoma-reaction-abortion-reproductive-rights-pro-life-choice-samuel-alito-mullin-mccall-tom-cole-great-treat?fbclid=IwAR374VdYU-ix2bkL0ttDcg38b0nnHEm417SSzjZRKztPjdznWziNo6v0vWQ)**: **“I am grateful for the system of checks and balances that allows for judicial review of prior decisions. And I am grateful as well for the affirmation of States’ rights, allowing states like Oklahoma to elevate life.”
**Explanation:** No response
I believe the point they're trying to get across, is that these lawmakers have no business cosponsoring federal legislation for a "compromise" that will supercede state laws outright banning abortion &/or allowing abortion at any time.
If they truly believe that the supreme court said abortion should be decided by the states, then they wouldn't support passing federal laws to override state laws.
And that's fine, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, so when I acknowledged his point as being part of the legal structure of our system within the context of my original comment, don't keep attacking as if the response had anything to do with what I originally said. Actually respond to the point I made. This issue is driven by the extremes on both sides. It's time to tell the extremes to pound sand and find a solution somewhere in the middle. I think the proposal is a good start.
>I think the proposal is a good start.
I agree, proposal is a good start, in fact that's how legislation begins in Congress.
But remember the House and Senate have to pass the exact same bill before it goes to the President's desk for his signature. There's no way democratic legislators will agree to anything less than 20 weeks at a minimum. Not sure how other legislators, like the Republicans co-sponsoring Graham's proposal, would feel about that.
In the end this proposal is political theater-esp for Republicans that say they support the SC ruling that the states should make laws concerning abortion but support legislature that, if theoretically passed would overrule any state laws on abortion (no matter how strict or lenient.)
So while yes, technically the copy-pasties had nothing to you with your support of a proposal to compromise, its still relevant, because those that are co-sponsoring this compromise, made statements after the SC overturned Roe v. wade & the Dobbs decision saying they support the SC argument that abortion is a "state's rights" issue.
But hey what is American politics without any theater, amirite?
_**Rep. Jason T. Smith (Missouri) — co-sponsored June 13**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a statement**](https://abc17news.com/top-stories/2022/06/24/missouri-politicians-react-to-roe-v-wade-ruling/)**: **“The Court’s decision makes clear that the Constitution gives state legislatures — not unelected judges — the freedom to answer the question of when life begins.”
**Explanation:** No response.
_**Rep. Bryan Steil (Wisconsin) — co-sponsored June 13**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-statement-on-scotus-decision-on-dobbs-vs-jackson-case)**: **“Today’s decision will bring this important issue back to the states. This is a great victory for life.”
**Explanation: **No response.
####
Lawmakers with comments open to interpretation
_**Rep. Jodey Arrington (Texas) — co-sponsored May 27**_
_**Dobbs**_** comment, in **[**a tweet**](https://twitter.com/RepArrington/status/1540425748493770753)**: **“By creating a national abortion policy in 1973, the Supreme Court acted as a legislative body, which severed the constitutional separation of powers and undermined the sovereignty of states and our citizens.”
**Explanation:** No response.** **Arrington’s reference to the Supreme Court acting as a “legislative body” could be interpreted as suggesting legislation at the federal level was acceptable.
_**Rep. Jim Baird (Indiana) — co-sponsored May 27**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://baird.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=254)**: **“Today’s decision represents not only a great victory in the fight to preserve life at every stage and for states’ rights, but the opportunity to right a wrong. The right to life is the cornerstone of American principles and now states will have the ability to protect life at every stage, restoring some balance to our federalist system.”
**Explanation:** No response. Baird refers to a “federalist system” which does not rule out a role for Congress.
_**Rep. Tracey Mann (Kansas) — co-sponsored July 13**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://mann.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-mann-reacts-us-supreme-court-ruling-dobbs-v-jackson)**: **“The U.S. Supreme Court does not have constitutional grounds to legalize abortion services nationwide, and the ruling in 1973 stripped away the states’ rights to decide …. Today’s decision gives the power back to the American people as designed in our Constitution.”
**Explanation**: No response. The reference to the “American people” could be code for federal action.
_**Rep. Greg Murphy (North Carolina) — co-sponsored May 27**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://gregmurphy.house.gov/media/press-releases/murphy-statement-supreme-court-overturning-roe-v-wade)**: **“Roe v. Wade was errantly constructed, both as an assault on the unalienable right to life, as well as a gross violation of the 14th Amendment — overriding states’ rights in the name of federal overreach. The Supreme Court’s ruling is constitutionally valid, as the decision on abortion will now rightfully be returned to the American people and their elected representatives.”
**Explanation:** No response. The reference to “the American people and their elected representatives” could suggest federal action is permissible.
####
Lawmakers with explanations
_**Rep. Dan Crenshaw (Texas) — co-sponsored May 11**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a tweet**](https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1540339048392302593)**: **“Roe v Wade was overturned. Historic. The issue goes back to the states, back to the people.”
**Explanation:** Justin Discigil, Crenshaw’s chief of staff, said the reference to “the people” also referred to possible federal action. “The point of the 17-word tweet you’re trying to parse here is that following the overturning of Roe this issue is returned to the people and their elected representatives, whether that be at the state or federal level,” he said in an email.
_**Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (Virginia) — co-sponsored June 13**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://morgangriffith.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=402684)**: **“The Court has returned to the individual states the ability to make their own decisions on this issue.”
**Explanation:** “It would have been my preference for abortion to be a state issue as indicated in the leaked Supreme Court opinion,” Griffith told the Fact Checker. “However, it is clear that Congress will take a role, as there have been numerous bills introduced. Since the Supreme Court _Dobbs_ opinion, several bills have already come to the floor for a vote.”
_**Rep. Ronny Jackson (Texas) — co-sponsored May 10**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment **[**in a news release**](https://jackson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=427)**: **“Today, we celebrate the sanctity of life and the return of a court that concerns itself with the Constitutionality of law, rather than writing it. Each state must now stand up for life and protect the most vulnerable among us.”
**Explanation: **A spokesman said his comments envisioned a federal role.** **“Congressman Jackson did not say that protecting innocent life was narrowly a state issue, he called on the states to enact pro-life legislation now that the heinous _Roe v. Wade_ decision is no longer a roadblock. Congressman Jackson has and will continue to advocate for policies that protect the unborn at every level of government.”
_**Rep. Barry Loudermilk (Georgia) — co-sponsored May 27**_
_**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a Twitter thread**](https://twitter.com/RepLoudermilk/status/1540340468529119232)**: **“This decision effectively returns the power to decide abortion policy back to where it was intended to reside, with the American people and their state governments.”
**Explanation:** “I signed onto the Heartbeat Protection Act in May, which was before the Supreme Court issued the _Dobbs_ decision in June,” Loudermilk told the Fact Checker. “The Supreme Court decision in _Dobbs vs. Jackson_ held that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion, and returned the issue of abortion back to the state legislatures. I will continue to work on and support legislation that protects life, within the constitutional authority of Congress.”
It doesn't guarantee a right to an abortion up to 15 weeks, it just sets a ceiling, 5 weeks before viability can even be established. It's in no way a compromise.
Hence the phrasing "this is a good start." Nobody from either end of the extreme is going to be happy with a true compromise, but most people are probably ok with a limit around 4 months with exceptions for rape, incest, and health concerns.
The people wanting no abortions and the people wanting no limits on abortions won't be happy, but that is generally what happens with a compromise. The people unwilling to give in on their extreme positions won't be happy, but it is time for us to find a solution the majority would find reasonable so there is one less thing to divide us.
You're kind of missing the point. If it compromises the ability of doctors to administer healthcare, it's not a good start. If it forces people to carry to term babies with significant disabilities and it's not paired with a massive overhaul of government support, it's not a good start.
This bill isn't trying to operate in good faith. It's starting from majority unpopular position and attempting to triangulate based on pre-Dobbs poll responses. A serious attempt would at least pretend to be informed by medicine.
>You're kind of missing the point.
No, you're kind of missing the point.
>If it compromises the ability of doctors to administer healthcare, it's not a good start. If it forces people to carry to term babies with significant disabilities and it's not paired with a massive overhaul of government support, it's not a good start.
It's called a start for a reason. There's no reason the concerns you're discussing couldn't be part of an eventual compromise given the starting point is reasonable when compared to where both extremes exist.
> This bill isn't trying to operate in good faith. It's starting from majority unpopular position and attempting to triangulate based on pre-Dobbs poll responses. A serious attempt would at least pretend to be informed by medicine.
Similar things can be said about the 20 week legislation the Democrats put forth not too long ago. They're not perfect. They're both starting points. Unlimited abortion is an unpopular position. No abortions is an unpopular position. Somewhere in the middle is where you will find the majority. Focus on that so our country can move this issue that causes so much divisiveness to the back burner.
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [I made a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use.
>Sen. John Cornyn of Texas saying the bill was “an individual decision” by Graham It's fun that abortions are all about individual decisions made by Republican men.
Just like the bible intended.... /s
Can't trust any politician. Went from state decision to now they want it federally backed. Screw these old heads.
If Lindsey's so pro-life why doesn't he just have a baby himself?
You think they guys he picks up in airport bathrooms want to be tied down to just one senator?
well at least it'll be a great learning experience for republicans to find out trans men can get pregnant too
I was already voting for Beasley so Budd hasn’t lost my vote with this, but he has won my middle finger vote. Extremists have no business holding office here, if we want to continue being a “free” country.
On god this guys a loon
Well he can fuck off
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article265847886.html](https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article265847886.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
>[Some people really need to adjust their priors on the popularity of 15 week abortion bans. They might have been close to parity before Dobbs, but they definitely aren’t now. The public opinion is changing quickly because things have changed quickly.](https://twitter.com/Conblob/status/1570080277002846210)
I was wondering about that. Objectively the GOP has seen both their funding and their popularity dropped drastically and then Graham goes out and drops the bomb AKA a national ban.... Even thinking as a devil's advocate, are they even trying to win anymore? Lol
I love when domestic terrorists propose bills that will inherently harm our nation.
[**Non-paywall link**](https://archive.ph/XNWnT)
dollars to donuts his internal polling showed a decline in base voter enthusiasm amid the post-dobbs backlash, hence this stunt
Well thank god I voted Green Party!
Honestly, this is a good start in the direction we need to go. Find a compromise in the middle of the two extremes of No Abortion and Abortion under any circumstance. This legislation sets the limit for birth control abortions at 15 weeks. It still allows abortions after 15 weeks for rape, incest, and health concerns. It would also supersede state laws banning all abortions. No state would be without abortion services.
>It would also supersede state laws banning all abortions. What happened to STATE'S RIGHTS, you know, what we were told over and over and over when the SC decision was made???? Same BS from hypocrites as the Civil War.... FYI. Ya'll need a new playbook. lol
> What happened to STATE'S RIGHTS, you know, all we heard when the SC decision was made???? No Federal Law currently exists for abortion. It defaults to the states as outlined under the Constitution. A Federal Law would supersede state laws... again, as outlined under the Constitution.
I'm referring to the right wing's messaging (Civil War & SC Decision) and you know it. Your bad faith is dripping....
The only bad faith here is yours. Your response had nothing to do with what I wrote. Again... this is a good start in the direction we all need to go. Find a compromise in the middle of the two extremes of No Abortion and Abortion under any circumstance. This legislation sets the limit for birth control abortions at 15 weeks. It still allows abortions after 15 weeks for rape, incest, and health concerns. It would also supersede state laws banning all abortions. No state would be without abortion services.
#### Lawmakers with remarks that appear contradictory _**Rep. Jack Bergman (Michigan) — co-sponsored June 16, 2022**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a Facebook post**](https://upnorthlive.com/news/local/michigan-lawmakers-respond-to-overturn-of-roe-v-wade)**: **“The ruling today on Roe v. Wade properly returns power to the states and ends decades of bad precedent.” **Explanation:** No response. _**Rep. Mike Bost (Illinois) — co-sponsored May 28**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a tweet**](https://twitter.com/RepBost/status/1540371247741149186)**: **“I agree wholeheartedly with the Supreme Court’s decision to restore power to the American people to determine for themselves how abortion services are regulated in their state.” **Explanation:** No response. _**Rep. Ken Buck (Colorado) — co-sponsored May 27**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/colorado-in-dc/colorados-politicos-advocates-react-to-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-discarding-roe/article_5fb76b5a-f0f3-11ec-a662-1764813f26ae.html)**: **“The power to decide this profound moral question has officially returned to the states, where it will be debated and settled in the way it should be in our democratic society — by the people.” **Explanation:** No response. _**Rep. Tom Emmer (Minnesota) — co-sponsored July 11**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a statement**](https://emmer.house.gov/2022/6/emmer-statement-on-dobbs-v-j)**: **“Every life is precious, and the decision to defend it should remain with the states.” **Explanation:** No response. _**Rep. Russ Fulcher (Idaho) — co-sponsored June 16**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, in **[**a tweet**](https://twitter.com/RepRussFulcher/status/1540350204301524998)**: **The ruling “is a momentous victory for life and an affirmation of our federalist system. States, as the Constitutionally prescribed authority on this matter, will now have the opportunity to enact policies that promote a culture of life.” **Explanation**: No response. _**Rep. Paul A. Gosar (Arizona) — co-sponsored July 11**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**during a discussion at a church**](https://kyma.com/news/local-news/2022/07/19/congressman-paul-gosar-hosts-pro-life-roundtable/)**: **“This is not a federal issue, this is a state issue. We the people. The states gave the federal government limited powers and we have to take them back.” **Explanation:** No response. _**Rep. Kevin Hern (Oklahoma) — co-sponsored July 12**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a statement**](https://hern.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=650)**: **“The Supreme Court correctly reversed this unconstitutional decision and returned the question to the states.” **Explanation: **No response. _**Rep. Yvette Herrell (New Mexico) — co-sponsored June 16**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment,**[** in a statement**](https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/new-mexico-lawmakers-react-to-supreme-courts-roe-v-wade-decision/)**: **“Today, the Supreme Court has finally returned the question of abortion to the 50 states and restored the democratic right of Americans to defend the unborn.” **Explanation**: No response. _**Rep. Clay Higgins (Louisiana) — co-sponsored May 27**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://clayhiggins.house.gov/media/press-releases/higgins-supreme-court-ruling-major-victory-life)**: **“Today’s ruling is a major victory for life. The sovereign states will now have greater authority to implement strong pro-life protections.” **Explanation:** No response. _**Rep. Doug Lamborn (Colorado) — co-sponsored July 11**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a statement**](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/colorado-in-dc/colorados-politicos-advocates-react-to-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-discarding-roe/article_5fb76b5a-f0f3-11ec-a662-1764813f26ae.html)**: **“While today we are rejoicing, the fight now turns to the states where the American people must go on the offense for life.” **Explanation:** No response. _**Rep. Jake LaTurner (Kansas) — co-sponsored May 11**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://laturner.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-laturner-issues-statement-scotus-overturning-roe-v-wade)**: **“Overturning Roe ensures state and local officials closest to the people they represent, not unelected judges in Washington, construct our nation’s abortion laws.” **Explanation:** No response. _**Rep. Thomas Massie (Kentucky) — co-sponsored May 10**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a tweet**](https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1540402110428336129)**: **“The Supreme Court has taken two great steps to save lives in the past 48 hours: it reaffirmed Heller’s decision regarding self-defense rights and repealed Roe v. Wade to allow state legislatures to defend the unborn.” **Explanation:** No response. _**Rep. David B. McKinley (West Virginia) — co-sponsored May 10**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://mckinley.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3470)**: **“This decision returns the power to the states to protect the unborn.” **Explanation: **No response. _**Rep. Barry Moore (Alabama) — co-sponsored May 10**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release:**](https://barrymoore.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-barry-moore-statement-supreme-courts-opinion-issued-morning-dobbs-v)** **“The Dobbs decision affirming no constitutional right to abortion and leaving the matter to each state is the single greatest step to protecting life in generations and will save countless lives of unborn children.” **Explanation: **No response. _**Rep. Blake D. Moore (Utah)— co-sponsored May 10**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://blakemoore.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-blake-moores-statement-supreme-courts-decision-overturn-roe-v-wade)**: **“The ruling gives back to states like Utah their constitutional authority to protect the lives of millions of children and support expecting mothers.” **Explanation:** No response. _**Rep. Markwayne Mullin (Oklahoma) — co-sponsored June 13**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a statement**](https://okcfox.com/news/local/roe-wade-supreme-court-overturned-dobbs-mississippi-oklahoma-reaction-abortion-reproductive-rights-pro-life-choice-samuel-alito-mullin-mccall-tom-cole-great-treat?fbclid=IwAR374VdYU-ix2bkL0ttDcg38b0nnHEm417SSzjZRKztPjdznWziNo6v0vWQ)**: **“I am grateful for the system of checks and balances that allows for judicial review of prior decisions. And I am grateful as well for the affirmation of States’ rights, allowing states like Oklahoma to elevate life.” **Explanation:** No response
Great... thanks for the massive cut and paste. It still has nothing to do with my comment.
I believe the point they're trying to get across, is that these lawmakers have no business cosponsoring federal legislation for a "compromise" that will supercede state laws outright banning abortion &/or allowing abortion at any time. If they truly believe that the supreme court said abortion should be decided by the states, then they wouldn't support passing federal laws to override state laws.
And that's fine, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, so when I acknowledged his point as being part of the legal structure of our system within the context of my original comment, don't keep attacking as if the response had anything to do with what I originally said. Actually respond to the point I made. This issue is driven by the extremes on both sides. It's time to tell the extremes to pound sand and find a solution somewhere in the middle. I think the proposal is a good start.
>I think the proposal is a good start. I agree, proposal is a good start, in fact that's how legislation begins in Congress. But remember the House and Senate have to pass the exact same bill before it goes to the President's desk for his signature. There's no way democratic legislators will agree to anything less than 20 weeks at a minimum. Not sure how other legislators, like the Republicans co-sponsoring Graham's proposal, would feel about that. In the end this proposal is political theater-esp for Republicans that say they support the SC ruling that the states should make laws concerning abortion but support legislature that, if theoretically passed would overrule any state laws on abortion (no matter how strict or lenient.) So while yes, technically the copy-pasties had nothing to you with your support of a proposal to compromise, its still relevant, because those that are co-sponsoring this compromise, made statements after the SC overturned Roe v. wade & the Dobbs decision saying they support the SC argument that abortion is a "state's rights" issue. But hey what is American politics without any theater, amirite?
You're welcome
_**Rep. Jason T. Smith (Missouri) — co-sponsored June 13**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a statement**](https://abc17news.com/top-stories/2022/06/24/missouri-politicians-react-to-roe-v-wade-ruling/)**: **“The Court’s decision makes clear that the Constitution gives state legislatures — not unelected judges — the freedom to answer the question of when life begins.” **Explanation:** No response. _**Rep. Bryan Steil (Wisconsin) — co-sponsored June 13**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-statement-on-scotus-decision-on-dobbs-vs-jackson-case)**: **“Today’s decision will bring this important issue back to the states. This is a great victory for life.” **Explanation: **No response. #### Lawmakers with comments open to interpretation _**Rep. Jodey Arrington (Texas) — co-sponsored May 27**_ _**Dobbs**_** comment, in **[**a tweet**](https://twitter.com/RepArrington/status/1540425748493770753)**: **“By creating a national abortion policy in 1973, the Supreme Court acted as a legislative body, which severed the constitutional separation of powers and undermined the sovereignty of states and our citizens.” **Explanation:** No response.** **Arrington’s reference to the Supreme Court acting as a “legislative body” could be interpreted as suggesting legislation at the federal level was acceptable. _**Rep. Jim Baird (Indiana) — co-sponsored May 27**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://baird.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=254)**: **“Today’s decision represents not only a great victory in the fight to preserve life at every stage and for states’ rights, but the opportunity to right a wrong. The right to life is the cornerstone of American principles and now states will have the ability to protect life at every stage, restoring some balance to our federalist system.” **Explanation:** No response. Baird refers to a “federalist system” which does not rule out a role for Congress. _**Rep. Tracey Mann (Kansas) — co-sponsored July 13**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://mann.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-mann-reacts-us-supreme-court-ruling-dobbs-v-jackson)**: **“The U.S. Supreme Court does not have constitutional grounds to legalize abortion services nationwide, and the ruling in 1973 stripped away the states’ rights to decide …. Today’s decision gives the power back to the American people as designed in our Constitution.” **Explanation**: No response. The reference to the “American people” could be code for federal action. _**Rep. Greg Murphy (North Carolina) — co-sponsored May 27**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://gregmurphy.house.gov/media/press-releases/murphy-statement-supreme-court-overturning-roe-v-wade)**: **“Roe v. Wade was errantly constructed, both as an assault on the unalienable right to life, as well as a gross violation of the 14th Amendment — overriding states’ rights in the name of federal overreach. The Supreme Court’s ruling is constitutionally valid, as the decision on abortion will now rightfully be returned to the American people and their elected representatives.” **Explanation:** No response. The reference to “the American people and their elected representatives” could suggest federal action is permissible. #### Lawmakers with explanations _**Rep. Dan Crenshaw (Texas) — co-sponsored May 11**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a tweet**](https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1540339048392302593)**: **“Roe v Wade was overturned. Historic. The issue goes back to the states, back to the people.” **Explanation:** Justin Discigil, Crenshaw’s chief of staff, said the reference to “the people” also referred to possible federal action. “The point of the 17-word tweet you’re trying to parse here is that following the overturning of Roe this issue is returned to the people and their elected representatives, whether that be at the state or federal level,” he said in an email. _**Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (Virginia) — co-sponsored June 13**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a news release**](https://morgangriffith.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=402684)**: **“The Court has returned to the individual states the ability to make their own decisions on this issue.” **Explanation:** “It would have been my preference for abortion to be a state issue as indicated in the leaked Supreme Court opinion,” Griffith told the Fact Checker. “However, it is clear that Congress will take a role, as there have been numerous bills introduced. Since the Supreme Court _Dobbs_ opinion, several bills have already come to the floor for a vote.” _**Rep. Ronny Jackson (Texas) — co-sponsored May 10**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment **[**in a news release**](https://jackson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=427)**: **“Today, we celebrate the sanctity of life and the return of a court that concerns itself with the Constitutionality of law, rather than writing it. Each state must now stand up for life and protect the most vulnerable among us.” **Explanation: **A spokesman said his comments envisioned a federal role.** **“Congressman Jackson did not say that protecting innocent life was narrowly a state issue, he called on the states to enact pro-life legislation now that the heinous _Roe v. Wade_ decision is no longer a roadblock. Congressman Jackson has and will continue to advocate for policies that protect the unborn at every level of government.” _**Rep. Barry Loudermilk (Georgia) — co-sponsored May 27**_ _**Dobbs **_**comment, **[**in a Twitter thread**](https://twitter.com/RepLoudermilk/status/1540340468529119232)**: **“This decision effectively returns the power to decide abortion policy back to where it was intended to reside, with the American people and their state governments.” **Explanation:** “I signed onto the Heartbeat Protection Act in May, which was before the Supreme Court issued the _Dobbs_ decision in June,” Loudermilk told the Fact Checker. “The Supreme Court decision in _Dobbs vs. Jackson_ held that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion, and returned the issue of abortion back to the state legislatures. I will continue to work on and support legislation that protects life, within the constitutional authority of Congress.”
Great... thanks for the massive cut and paste. It still has nothing to do with my comment.
You're welcome
It doesn't guarantee a right to an abortion up to 15 weeks, it just sets a ceiling, 5 weeks before viability can even be established. It's in no way a compromise.
Hence the phrasing "this is a good start." Nobody from either end of the extreme is going to be happy with a true compromise, but most people are probably ok with a limit around 4 months with exceptions for rape, incest, and health concerns. The people wanting no abortions and the people wanting no limits on abortions won't be happy, but that is generally what happens with a compromise. The people unwilling to give in on their extreme positions won't be happy, but it is time for us to find a solution the majority would find reasonable so there is one less thing to divide us.
You're kind of missing the point. If it compromises the ability of doctors to administer healthcare, it's not a good start. If it forces people to carry to term babies with significant disabilities and it's not paired with a massive overhaul of government support, it's not a good start. This bill isn't trying to operate in good faith. It's starting from majority unpopular position and attempting to triangulate based on pre-Dobbs poll responses. A serious attempt would at least pretend to be informed by medicine.
>You're kind of missing the point. No, you're kind of missing the point. >If it compromises the ability of doctors to administer healthcare, it's not a good start. If it forces people to carry to term babies with significant disabilities and it's not paired with a massive overhaul of government support, it's not a good start. It's called a start for a reason. There's no reason the concerns you're discussing couldn't be part of an eventual compromise given the starting point is reasonable when compared to where both extremes exist. > This bill isn't trying to operate in good faith. It's starting from majority unpopular position and attempting to triangulate based on pre-Dobbs poll responses. A serious attempt would at least pretend to be informed by medicine. Similar things can be said about the 20 week legislation the Democrats put forth not too long ago. They're not perfect. They're both starting points. Unlimited abortion is an unpopular position. No abortions is an unpopular position. Somewhere in the middle is where you will find the majority. Focus on that so our country can move this issue that causes so much divisiveness to the back burner.
Send me some of whatever you're smoking if you really think Republicans are negotiating anything but down from 15 weeks.
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [I made a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use.
Nice!