I agree with you about GOP hypocrisy! I'm just saying that it's odd to see the court's current lineup *solely* as the result of an incredibly disciplined campaign by the right when it was also, to a large extent, the result of things accidentally lining up the GOP's way.
The Louisiana law has already been amended to clarify that it won't…
I agree with you about GOP hypocrisy! I'm just saying that it's odd to see the court's current lineup *solely* as the result of an incredibly disciplined campaign by the right when it was also, to a large extent, the result of things accidentally lining up the GOP's way.
The Louisiana law has already been amended to clarify that it won't apply to IUDs or emergency contraception. You cannot push through massively unpopular legislation.
As for a national ban: I think this is something Democrats should definitely hammer on in the run-up to the midterms! But there's a difference between vigilance and "the sky is falling."
Is it a possibility? Maybe. I think it would be a colossally stupid thing for Republicans to try.
I agree with you about GOP hypocrisy! I'm just saying that it's odd to see the court's current lineup *solely* as the result of an incredibly disciplined campaign by the right when it was also, to a large extent, the result of things accidentally lining up the GOP's way.
The Louisiana law has already been amended to clarify that it won't apply to IUDs or emergency contraception. You cannot push through massively unpopular legislation.
As for a national ban: I think this is something Democrats should definitely hammer on in the run-up to the midterms! But there's a difference between vigilance and "the sky is falling."
Is it a possibility? Maybe. I think it would be a colossally stupid thing for Republicans to try.