• reverendsteveii@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    6 weeks is effectively a ban. That’s not even enough time to know you’re pregnant.

    I know that’s their intent, but I don’t understand why they aren’t just going for an all-out ban. That would really rile up their rabid idiot supporters, and their strategy is clearly to motivate the base rather than to reach across the aisle. Why not go whole hog? They just got clearance from SCotUS to do it.

    • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I know that’s their intent, but I don’t understand why they aren’t just going for an all-out ban.

      because 6 week bans are already unpopular, and total bans even moreso. even most anti-abortion advocates are not in favor of a total ban.

      • reverendsteveii@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        if they were concerned about popularity it would make sense to sponsor popular bills. and let’s be honest, most anti-abortion advocates are in favor of abortion when they want one.

        • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          if they were concerned about popularity it would make sense to sponsor popular bills.

          the difference between a 6 week ban and a total ban electorally is substantial enough that it’s not worth the optical tradeoff for them, particularly when a 6 week ban is functionally the same thing. keep in mind: Republicans have already suffered Roe backlash in 2022; they would basically guarantee a sustained backlash in pursuing total bans.