I’ve heard this explained before as the selfishness of believing that if you’re protected on a local level, that frees these voters up to vote for other conservative policies on a national level.
That sometimes with these ordinances, they work the other way. If moderate voters pass the statewide protection, it allows them to rationalize a vote for Republicans to do immigration measures and tax cuts, because they feel protected by the state amendment.
states rights don’t mean a damn thing when the party of states rights (but only when it serves the far right agenda) enacts a federal ban superseding all the local and state protections.
Nope, not how our system works. A federal ban would override state law.
The situation would at best mimic legal weed. The feds can 100% legally raid weed stores right now in the majority of states, but doing so is seen as pointless and would be politically unpopular.
The difference between weed stores and abortion clinics is that while both weed and abortion are popular, abortion is easier to villify and attack. They also don’t make anywhere near as much money as weed and require doctors to operate, so you have a much higher risk and much lower reward to fight the federal law on a local level.
It’ll probably be like when Trump and the DEA signaled they may want to start going after weed smokers in states that legalized it despite it being federally illegal.
The response from the states was, “Go ahead, but we’re not helping you in any way.”
And the DEA dropped it, I imagine because they didn’t have the money or manpower to do pursue further.
Doctors are licensed at the state level, so the fed can’t (currently) revoke medical licenses afaik. They can threaten to pull federal funding from hospitals and research centers, but that isn’t all funding, and their own voter base has been vocally opposed to anything that makes healthcare worse (and also supported abortion rights at the state level this past election, even in states that went Trump).
Obviously, I could be completely wrong and they’ve (Trump and his ilk) already got avenues to counteract all of these barriers (and any I’m not thinking of). But I’m trying to be cautiously optimistic that, unless Trump plans on sending federal agents to every surgical suite and pharmacy/drug store in the country, I don’t see a federal ban being enforceable without the help of the states.
And they will (hopefully) give Trump the finger. Cautiously optimistic.
I’ve heard this explained before as the selfishness of believing that if you’re protected on a local level, that frees these voters up to vote for other conservative policies on a national level.
That sometimes with these ordinances, they work the other way. If moderate voters pass the statewide protection, it allows them to rationalize a vote for Republicans to do immigration measures and tax cuts, because they feel protected by the state amendment.
The “I got mine” mentality.
Yep, you nailed it with ‘selfishness’.
Not just “I’ve got mine”. It’s really “I’ve got mine, fuck you!”
It’s selfishness and petty grievances blown all out of proportion.
True, but with that level of selfishness, the “eff you” is there implicitly.
And stupid.
states rights don’t mean a damn thing when the party of states rights (but only when it serves the far right agenda) enacts a federal ban superseding all the local and state protections.
I’m hoping a federal abortion ban would be unenforceable in states that guarantee protections
Nope, not how our system works. A federal ban would override state law.
The situation would at best mimic legal weed. The feds can 100% legally raid weed stores right now in the majority of states, but doing so is seen as pointless and would be politically unpopular.
The difference between weed stores and abortion clinics is that while both weed and abortion are popular, abortion is easier to villify and attack. They also don’t make anywhere near as much money as weed and require doctors to operate, so you have a much higher risk and much lower reward to fight the federal law on a local level.
It’ll probably be like when Trump and the DEA signaled they may want to start going after weed smokers in states that legalized it despite it being federally illegal.
The response from the states was, “Go ahead, but we’re not helping you in any way.”
And the DEA dropped it, I imagine because they didn’t have the money or manpower to do pursue further.
Doctors are licensed at the state level, so the fed can’t (currently) revoke medical licenses afaik. They can threaten to pull federal funding from hospitals and research centers, but that isn’t all funding, and their own voter base has been vocally opposed to anything that makes healthcare worse (and also supported abortion rights at the state level this past election, even in states that went Trump).
Obviously, I could be completely wrong and they’ve (Trump and his ilk) already got avenues to counteract all of these barriers (and any I’m not thinking of). But I’m trying to be cautiously optimistic that, unless Trump plans on sending federal agents to every surgical suite and pharmacy/drug store in the country, I don’t see a federal ban being enforceable without the help of the states.
And they will (hopefully) give Trump the finger. Cautiously optimistic.
Haha Supremacy Clause go brrrrrrrr
(It’s not funny tho)
We’ve seen how that works out with marijuana legalization.