No matter what the polls say, having the Democrat controlled House focus on federal plans to keep abortion on demand legal, easy to obtain, and with no restrictions might not play well with voters, especially with the economy (and Joe’s approval rating) in free fall
With Roe Under Threat, House Plans to Vote on Bill to Counter Abortion Curbs
House Democrats plan on Friday to push through broad legislation to uphold abortion rights, taking urgent action after a major Supreme Court setback as they brace for a ruling next year that could further roll back access to abortion nationwide.
The House vote will be largely symbolic given that the bill, the Women’s Health Protection Act, has little chance of advancing because of Republican opposition in the Senate. But House Democrats’ decision to consider it reflects their view that the issue could resonate strongly in the midterm elections next year, particularly if female voters see the Supreme Court action as a threat to rights that many believed had been long settled.
Democrats moved swiftly to schedule action on the measure after the court refused this month to block a Texas law that prohibits most abortions after six weeks of gestation. It would guarantee the right to abortion through federal law, preempting hundreds of state laws governing the procedure around the country. Democrats argue that it would codify Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.
But, even if they could get it to pass, would it survive the numerous court challenges, since the Constitution does not specifically give the federal government the power to regulate abortion, meaning the 10th Amendment comes into play. There is, though, little chance that the infanticide bill would be brought up in the Senate, as all Republicans would vote no, and there are several Democrats who would vote no.
The Democrats’ strong push for the abortion rights measure reflects a changing political dynamic in the party. In the past, Democratic leaders were reluctant to emphasize measures such as the women’s health bill for fear of putting centrists in swing districts in a tough position and potentially alienating voters.
But as the ranks of centrist Democrats have shrunk, so have the numbers of lawmakers in the party who oppose abortion rights. Chu said she had found that her colleagues from competitive districts had been eager to sign onto the measure.
As the unhinged, hardcore Leftists have become dominant they are willing to push for more and more extreme stuff.
(Heritage) Supporters’ claims that the bill would simply “codify Roe v. Wade†are misleading and inaccurate. The bill would effectively repeal existing state laws, expressly prohibit future laws that regulate abortion and the abortion industry, and place at risk long-standing federal policies that reflect more than 40 years of bipartisan consensus. Since 1973, states have enacted more than 1,300 life-affirming policies—more than 500 in the past decade alone.
These laws have been enacted by policymakers duly elected by their constituents, and some have been litigated all the way to the Supreme Court and deemed constitutional. The WHPA simply ignores numerous long-standing laws protecting critical interests such as “protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession†and “regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.â€
The bill prohibits government entities from imposing any limitation or requirement that “expressly, effectively, implicitly, or as implemented singles out†and “impedes access to†abortion. The bill does not define what it means to “single out†abortion. The bill provides narrow exceptions if a requirement “significantly advances the safety of abortion services or the health of patients†and such safety “cannot be advanced by a less restrictive alternative measure.†However, the factors “a court may consider†in deciding whether a requirement “impedes access to abortion†include overly broad examples such as whether the limitation or requirement “interferes†with an abortion provider’s ability to perform an abortion and whether the limitation or requirement is “reasonably likely to directly or indirectly increase the cost of providing…or obtaining abortion services (including costs associated with travel, childcare, or time off work.)â€
In other words, there would be no state policies allowed, including the regulation of abortion facilities, such as inspection and treating them the same as other medical facilities. It would disallow restrictions on abortion for sex, race, and diagnosis of abnormality, any sort of eugenics.
It would also prevent states from enacting policies that protect children after they can survive outside the womb—something that more than half of the states currently address. The bill disallows post-viability abortion restrictions if the abortion provider believes that continuing the pregnancy would “pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.†The term “health†is never defined in the bill and has been considered elsewhere, in courts and in states, to include factors like emotional health, age, and financial health.
So, let them die if born. As for health, the abortion fetishists believe it’s health when the woman just no longer cares and changes her mind.
It would also mostly do away with all religious objections, which could kill the bill if had any chance of passing the Senate. Too bad the House can’t be sued, since the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall pass no law…” in regards to religion. And this “women’s health” bill would essentially create taxpayer funded abortions for those who were too irresponsible to use birth control.
So, yeah, go ahead and pass it, show America just how extreme you are. Of course, if I’m being honest, the elected Republicans will mostly fail to take advantage of this during election season.
Read: House Democrats Plan Vote Protecting Abortion On Demand »
Speaking at a climate rally in Berlin on Friday, 
Martha Gabriel knows the effects of sweltering heat. For the last five years, Gabriel has been picking sweet potatoes, beans and tomatoes under the blazing South Florida sun.
As he announced on Friday that booster shots would be available to some Americans, President Biden made a prediction: His administration was likely to soon provide third doses of the vaccine “across the board†to anyone who wanted one.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has taken out a second injunction against the Insulate Britain mob after 39 were arrested for gluing themselves to tankers carrying petrol at Dover port.
The Biden administration has suspended the use of horse patrols at the U.S.-Mexico border crossing in Del Rio, Texas, White House press secretary Jen Psaki announced Thursday.
Young people around the world began taking to the streets on Friday to demand urgent action to avert disastrous climate change, in their largest protest since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Humanity needs to “grow up” and deal with the issue of climate change, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Wednesday.
