They have seen the light, they would say "no", get reelected, then start listening to the vocal minority again.

As I keep telling my wife who is on a crusade against the GOP now, the only thing that will work is if everyone gets off their butts and votes.

Well yes, I know they will lie. Everyone does. So they need to be asked over and over to damn them with any who believe them before. Their lie of values laid bare. No one should believe them, as you say, ever.

Tugg

Interesting battle in South Carolina. An extremely restrictive ban that flew through committee is now in the house, and now the GOP is trying to amend the bill( about 25), and they are getting beat down by the more conservative members and the Democrats that want to force the vote in order to kill the bill without amendments.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 942330001/

There are 80 republicans and 43 democrats

Less than an hour after debate began, lawmakers voted on changing the bill to include the rape and incest exceptions. It failed on a 75-25 vote, with almost all the House’s Democrats joining more conservative Republicans.

Some form of the exceptions could come back later in the debate, but it was an indication Democrats want to force Republicans to have to vote on an extreme form of the legislatio

The GOP is suddenly startled now that they are starting to realize how unpopular their bill and position is across the country.

And South Carolina did not pass the near total ban that some Republicans had tried to get through.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... -proposal/

So there is a real split that has emerged within the Republican party with the loss of Roe v Wade protections. There are "limited access" Republican's and "forced birth" absolutist Republicans. I'll be curious to see how that affects coming elections and future candidates that come after.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

And South Carolina did not pass the near total ban that some Republicans had tried to get through.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... -proposal/

So there is a real split that has emerged within the Republican party with the loss of Roe v Wade protections. There are "limited access" Republican's and "forced birth" absolutist Republicans. I'll be curious to see how that affects coming elections and future candidates that come after.

Tugg

It will boil down to constituencies. Republicans in more moderate areas know that this is the truck that the dog has caught. They know that suburban voters, and voters moving from other states who are on board with their economic agenda won’t buy the moralistic nonsense.

A completely correct (and understandable) hammer drop by Ana Kasparian on this issue

https://twitter.com/rmayemsinger/status ... F_s8o-YJvw

Looks like Lindsey didn't get the memo about putting the issue on the backburner for this election cycle. It also goes against that old GOP argument of States Rights.
The article points out some very flawed arguments here, and makes Abortion even more of an issue for this cycle. Has Lindsey decided to sabotage the GOP here?



https://time.com/6213018/lindsey-graham ... rtion-ban/

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina introduced a bill on Tuesday that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy nationwide, the biggest step by Republicans to restrict abortion on a federal level since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The bill “would say after 15 weeks, no abortion on demand, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother,” Graham said at a news conference. “That should be where America is at.”

casinterest wrote:

Looks like Lindsey didn't get the memo about putting the issue on the backburner for this election cycle. It also goes against that old GOP argument of States Rights.



https://time.com/6213018/lindsey-graham ... rtion-ban/

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina introduced a bill on Tuesday that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy nationwide, the biggest step by Republicans to restrict abortion on a federal level since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The bill “would say after 15 weeks, no abortion on demand, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother,” Graham said at a news conference. “That should be where America is at.”

Yeah, direct conflict of the old "this should be a state decided issue!" trope.

He is doing it to try and get the noose off the necks of every Republican that runs in a competitive district. However he is just highlighting the issue.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Looks like Lindsey didn't get the memo about putting the issue on the backburner for this election cycle. It also goes against that old GOP argument of States Rights.



https://time.com/6213018/lindsey-graham ... rtion-ban/

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina introduced a bill on Tuesday that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy nationwide, the biggest step by Republicans to restrict abortion on a federal level since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The bill “would say after 15 weeks, no abortion on demand, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother,” Graham said at a news conference. “That should be where America is at.”

Yeah, direct conflict of the old "this should be a state decided issue!" trope.

He is doing it to try and get the noose off the necks of every Republican that runs in a competitive district. However he is just highlighting the issue.

Tugg

I don't see how it gets the noose off of their necks, if they are supporting federal overreach,

casinterest wrote:

Tugger wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Looks like Lindsey didn't get the memo about putting the issue on the backburner for this election cycle. It also goes against that old GOP argument of States Rights.

https://time.com/6213018/lindsey-graham ... rtion-ban/

Yeah, direct conflict of the old "this should be a state decided issue!" trope.

He is doing it to try and get the noose off the necks of every Republican that runs in a competitive district. However he is just highlighting the issue.

Tugg

I don't see how it gets the noose off of their necks, if they are supporting federal overreach,

It gives Republican's that need it something to point to and not be "some extremist wacko" and sets a center for any discussion that may arise. What he is proposing is comparatively reasonable to many who lean more conservative or Republican. Three and a half months and includes the popular exceptions. So it won't chase away the majority of the party that does support access. It is also more conservative that his previous proposals to lessen the number of forced birth supporters that woudl turn out against.

Tugg

Lindsay Graham just seems to be all over the place, on every issue. First Trump tried to overturn the election, then he didn't. Then first federal abortion legislation, then states rights, now legislation again.

Now he claims legislative privilege in conversations with election officials about the 2020 elections (fact-finding), when it's clear his capacity was political in supporting Trump . He condemned the BLM riots but then claimed riots in the streets if Trump is indicted.

He never met a position he didn't want to contradict, or reverse. How does he stay in office? He should have been out in 2020.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

And, Graham’s silly idea should be struck down as unconstitutional as there’s no basis in Art. 1, Sec 8 for Congress to regulate abortions. It’s purely a state issue.

And as a state issue, any laws banning abortion will ultimately be unenforceable. So there may be laws, but nothing will be allowed to be done to enforce them. Sadly though the process will need to go through the courts and will take years and many women will suffer for it as it does.

Tugg

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

And, Graham’s silly idea should be struck down as unconstitutional as there’s no basis in Art. 1, Sec 8 for Congress to regulate abortions. It’s purely a state issue.

It's hilarious sometimes to watch people's subordination to their donors, impulses, and egos play out on a national stage. He just couldn't help himself.

Tugger wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Yeah, direct conflict of the old "this should be a state decided issue!" trope.

He is doing it to try and get the noose off the necks of every Republican that runs in a competitive district. However he is just highlighting the issue.

Tugg

I don't see how it gets the noose off of their necks, if they are supporting federal overreach,

It gives Republican's that need it something to point to and not be "some extremist wacko" and sets a center for any discussion that may arise. What he is proposing is comparatively reasonable to many who lean more conservative or Republican. Three and a half months and includes the popular exceptions. So it won't chase away the majority of the party that does support access. It is also more conservative that his previous proposals to lessen the number of forced birth supporters that woudl turn out against.

Tugg

This sets the GOP into a very bad state, as it is a very fascist and non-scientific move. If anything it gives the republicans a headache in battleground districts in liberal states and in conservative states. It shows that the GOP is not interested in local government, and that the legislation of a woman's rights to health is a sliding scale on which the GOP will constantly move the bar. The GOP is working on shrinking it's big tent.

casinterest wrote:

This sets the GOP into a very bad state, as it is a very fascist and non-scientific move. If anything it gives the republicans a headache in battleground districts in liberal states and in conservative states. It shows that the GOP is not interested in local government, and that the legislation of a woman's rights to health is a sliding scale on which the GOP will constantly move the bar. The GOP is working on shrinking it's big tent.

And I do agree, as I noted I think it only highlights the issue, which is not a good thing for the GOP overall. I just can imagine why he might think it something he needs to do. Though as you note, this goes straight in the teeth of the problem the courts had with Roe v Wade, in that it sets an arbitrary time when there is no way of proving what time is best.

Tugg

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

And, Graham’s silly idea should be struck down as unconstitutional as there’s no basis in Art. 1, Sec 8 for Congress to regulate abortions. It’s purely a state issue.

So, to fix that, he proposed a law banning all abortions after 15 weeks

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... ?gnt-cfr=1
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/13/11227009 ... the-senate

Even though it is a state right?

And here comes Mike Pence in his effort to back Lindsey Graham's Bill. The Sharia law faction of the GOP that wants to use the fascist wing to implement Religion into the US law.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 48191.html

“It is imperative that Republicans and conservatives resolve, here and now, that we will not shrink from the fight,” he added. For their part, Republican leadership would rather not. At least, not right now.

More specifically, on Capitol Hill, GOP brass groused Tuesday that South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s bill to ban most abortions at 15 weeks had elevated a divisive social issue ahead of the midterms at the expense of their economic broadside against the White House. “Most of the members of my conference,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, “prefer that this be dealt with at the state level.”

Pence understands the argument. He just believes advocating for a national abortion ban, as well as individual state restrictions, “is profoundly more important than any short-term politics.”

And despite the risk touted by various GOP political consultants, he believes that those state and federal level efforts will not harm Republican chances of taking Congress. “I'm convinced,” he said, “that enthusiasm among pro-life Americans in states across the country is equal to, or greater than, any new motivation by people that support abortion rights.

Pence and Graham are the reason I always lower expectations of all the "Don't Tread on Me" flag flying folks. They don't want anyone to tread on their rights, but they are fine in destroying others rights.

casinterest wrote:

And here comes Mike Pence in his effort to back Lindsey Graham's Bill. The Sharia law faction of the GOP that wants to use the fascist wing to implement Religion into the US law.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 48191.html

“It is imperative that Republicans and conservatives resolve, here and now, that we will not shrink from the fight,” he added. For their part, Republican leadership would rather not. At least, not right now.

More specifically, on Capitol Hill, GOP brass groused Tuesday that South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s bill to ban most abortions at 15 weeks had elevated a divisive social issue ahead of the midterms at the expense of their economic broadside against the White House. “Most of the members of my conference,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, “prefer that this be dealt with at the state level.”

Pence understands the argument. He just believes advocating for a national abortion ban, as well as individual state restrictions, “is profoundly more important than any short-term politics.”

And despite the risk touted by various GOP political consultants, he believes that those state and federal level efforts will not harm Republican chances of taking Congress. “I'm convinced,” he said, “that enthusiasm among pro-life Americans in states across the country is equal to, or greater than, any new motivation by people that support abortion rights.

Pence and Graham are the reason I always lower expectations of all the "Don't Tread on Me" flag flying folks. They don't want anyone to tread on their rights, but they are fine in destroying others rights.

This is all about short term fundraising for Mike Pence for whatever his next steps are. By doing the right thing, he knows he lost his long term credibility with enough of the Trump base to ever hope to win an election again.

luckyone wrote:

casinterest wrote:

And here comes Mike Pence in his effort to back Lindsey Graham's Bill. The Sharia law faction of the GOP that wants to use the fascist wing to implement Religion into the US law.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 48191.html

“It is imperative that Republicans and conservatives resolve, here and now, that we will not shrink from the fight,” he added. For their part, Republican leadership would rather not. At least, not right now.

More specifically, on Capitol Hill, GOP brass groused Tuesday that South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s bill to ban most abortions at 15 weeks had elevated a divisive social issue ahead of the midterms at the expense of their economic broadside against the White House. “Most of the members of my conference,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, “prefer that this be dealt with at the state level.”

Pence understands the argument. He just believes advocating for a national abortion ban, as well as individual state restrictions, “is profoundly more important than any short-term politics.”

And despite the risk touted by various GOP political consultants, he believes that those state and federal level efforts will not harm Republican chances of taking Congress. “I'm convinced,” he said, “that enthusiasm among pro-life Americans in states across the country is equal to, or greater than, any new motivation by people that support abortion rights.

Pence and Graham are the reason I always lower expectations of all the "Don't Tread on Me" flag flying folks. They don't want anyone to tread on their rights, but they are fine in destroying others rights.

This is all about short term fundraising for Mike Pence for whatever his next steps are. By doing the right thing, he knows he lost his long term credibility with enough of the Trump base to ever hope to win an election again.

Fundraising means there is still an audience, and it is the corralling of these folks into a powerful lobby that creates issues down the line for everyone's freedom.

casinterest wrote:

Pence and Graham are the reason I always lower expectations of all the "Don't Tread on Me" flag flying folks. They don't want anyone to tread on their rights, but they are fine in destroying others rights.

The reason for that is they don't see civil rights as a balance between all people and interests, rather as an assertion of an entitlement. It's a zero sum game to them. If someone else argues for their rights, it takes away my rights (the source of the bogeyman perspective, they are coming for me & mine).

In that mindset, it's ok to trample another person's rights, if doing so assures theirs. This is also the reason they hate the idea of a living Constitution that adapts to the times, through judicial interpretation. They call it judicial overreach and legislation, to conceal their agenda. But it's really about the sense of loss to them personally, that change represents. Rather than a sense of gain to society, as most rational people would experience.

You mentioned Sharia law, the same agenda is present there, as evident in the suppression of women in Afghanistan. For women to succeed and have their own stature in society, is considered loss to the men that view them as property. If my property decides to up and walk away, that is a theft of my entitlement.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

And, Graham’s silly idea should be struck down as unconstitutional as there’s no basis in Art. 1, Sec 8 for Congress to regulate abortions. It’s purely a state issue.

So, to fix that, he proposed a law banning all abortions after 15 weeks

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... ?gnt-cfr=1
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/13/11227009 ... the-senate

Even though it is a state right?

Well, DOMA passed and was challenged, and the finding was that it violated Equal Protection, not that the government had no constitutional right to legislate - but that it was discriminatory legislation.

Unfortunately, I think this, if it passes (no chance today at least), would be constitutional, and this current court makeup would vote 5-4 to further enshrine it into law.

The Trump administration didn't bang on about abortion or gay marriage or religious issues, except for Pence's weird kinks - it did however install a staggering amount of Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society certified conservative judges across the whole country, jammed through the Senate through parliamentary maneuvering. Turns out you can really mess up policy while you only control one branch of government.

Something has to be done about the overly partisan nature of this court. Playing inside the guidelines only works when you both agree to the rules - I'd seriously be reviewing the legal foundations of court packing from the Roosevelt era to today, and then I'd start packing the court, quickly.

This bill is DOA anyways, right? As goofy and unreliable Synema and Manchin have been, no way in hell they vote for this. And with each passing week, it's becoming more and more likely the Dems keep the Senate, maybe even pick up a couple of seats:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... id=rrpromo

Avatar2go wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Pence and Graham are the reason I always lower expectations of all the "Don't Tread on Me" flag flying folks. They don't want anyone to tread on their rights, but they are fine in destroying others rights.

The reason for that is they don't see civil rights as a balance between all people and interests, rather as an assertion of an entitlement. It's a zero sum game to them. If someone else argues for their rights, it takes away my rights (the source of the bogeyman perspective, they are coming for me & mine).

In that mindset, it's ok to trample another person's rights, if doing so assures theirs. This is also the reason they hate the idea of a living Constitution that adapts to the times, through judicial interpretation. They call it judicial overreach and legislation, to conceal their agenda. But it's really about the sense of loss to them personally, that change represents. Rather than a sense of gain to society, as most rational people would experience.

You mentioned Sharia law, the same agenda is present there, as evident in the suppression of women in Afghanistan. For women to succeed and have their own stature in society, is considered loss to the men that view them as property. If my property decides to up and walk away, that is a theft of my entitlement.

It is an overreaching scared person argument, but at the same time there has to be some situational awareness that these kinds of actions only hurt those that put them in place.

Making other people scared hurts the economic growth of areas where such laws are implemented, thus ruining the "free market" and capitalism .

Choice up to 15 weeks, then all kinds of social and medical exceptions to restrictions after that is more or less in-line with a lot of liberal european countries. Hard to see it as controversial, moralistic or anywhere close to fascistic.

M564038 wrote:

Choice up to 15 weeks, then all kinds of social and medical exceptions to restrictions after that is more or less in-line with a lot of liberal european countries. Hard to see it as controversial, moralistic or anywhere close to fascistic.

Why?
The baby can't survive without the mother. It should be the mother's choice up until the baby is viable outside of the womb. That is why 24 weeks was the general spot in Roe. Anything outside of that is just arbitrary number tossing for people that want to control other people's bodies and choices.

casinterest wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Choice up to 15 weeks, then all kinds of social and medical exceptions to restrictions after that is more or less in-line with a lot of liberal european countries. Hard to see it as controversial, moralistic or anywhere close to fascistic.

Why?
The baby can't survive without the mother. It should be the mother's choice up until the baby is viable outside of the womb. That is why 24 weeks was the general spot in Roe. Anything outside of that is just arbitrary number tossing for people that want to control other people's bodies and choices.

24 weeks was an arbitrary number as well.

That is why a court is a difficult if not impossible place to "define" a number with no absolute value or science behind it. That was one of the big vulnerabilities of RvW. For each case it is subjective.

To me the real rule is "It is the woman's choice as she is a living conscious being, with rights to her life and body under US law."

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

casinterest wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Choice up to 15 weeks, then all kinds of social and medical exceptions to restrictions after that is more or less in-line with a lot of liberal european countries. Hard to see it as controversial, moralistic or anywhere close to fascistic.

Why?
The baby can't survive without the mother. It should be the mother's choice up until the baby is viable outside of the womb. That is why 24 weeks was the general spot in Roe. Anything outside of that is just arbitrary number tossing for people that want to control other people's bodies and choices.

24 weeks was an arbitrary number as well.

That is why a court is a difficult if not impossible place to "define" a number with no absolute value or science behind it. That was one of the big vulnerabilities of RvW. For each case it is subjective.

To me the real rule is "It is the woman's choice as she is a living conscious being, with rights to her life and body under US law."

Tugg

I look at it as the forced birth argument.
If a child is coming into this world and the government is going to regulate that choice, then the government better be prepared to help that child survive outside the womb when it is statistically probably the life will survive;.

https://www.healthline.com/health/baby/ ... e#24-weeks

A baby born between 20 and 26 weeks is a considered to be periviable, or born during the window when a fetus has a chance of surviving outside the womb. These babies are called “micro-preemies.”

A baby born before 24 weeks has less than a 50 percent chance at survival, say the experts at University of Utah Health.

That is completely extreme to me.
The limits in the 10-18 weeks range found in the liberal western democracies, based on medical expertise sounds right to me. From a purely personal standpoint, it makes sense from what I saw (and felt) holding my own dead 15 week old fetus in my hands. Not yet a child, a humanoid, but only just.
I am extremely uncomfortable with the thought of abortion for any non-life threatening reason after 20 weeks. I believe the fetus has become a baby and gained it's own human rights by then. Someone I would throw myself in front of the bus for by reflex.

15 weeks of the woman's completely own free choice sounds about perfect.

casinterest wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Choice up to 15 weeks, then all kinds of social and medical exceptions to restrictions after that is more or less in-line with a lot of liberal european countries. Hard to see it as controversial, moralistic or anywhere close to fascistic.

Why?
The baby can't survive without the mother. It should be the mother's choice up until the baby is viable outside of the womb. That is why 24 weeks was the general spot in Roe. Anything outside of that is just arbitrary number tossing for people that want to control other people's bodies and choices.

Apparently it's not a state's rights issue after all.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3 ... hts-issue/

Lady Graham's ego just couldn't be ignored.

Tugger wrote:

24 weeks was an arbitrary number as well

Tugg

I’d dispute that 24 weeks was just arbitrarily chosen. When set, it was generally accepted as the crossover point at which more embryos could survive than not.

scbriml wrote:

Tugger wrote:

24 weeks was an arbitrary number as well

Tugg

I’d dispute that 24 weeks was just arbitrarily chosen. When set, it was generally accepted as the crossover point at which more embryos could survive than not.

Even now, 23 weeks gestation is considered a borderline below which the risk of serious disability is largely untenable. 23 weeks is the Dutch boundary for birth viability.

It helps to understand that gestational limits on abortion around the world, have different bases.

The most common limit of 12 weeks for elective procedures, is based on the medical definition of the first trimester. Most countries that use this basis, also have additional later limits for contingencies. The most common limit for contingency is 20 weeks.

For countries that have lower limits than these, the basis is mostly a compromise of medical care & need with religious beliefs. In some countries abortion is illegal in all forms, again based mostly on religion.

For countries that have marginally higher limits, the basis is mostly statistical data for women seeking abortion in those countries. There are also some countries with no limits, leaving the decision entirely to the family and physicians.

The proposed 15 week standard has some basis in statistics for women seeking abortions, as mentioned, as it would cover the majority. But also some religious basis.

Under Roe, the US was one of a few countries that applied the viability standard. That is a consensus of the medical community, and with improvements in medical technology, has declined over time from 28 weeks in 1973, to perhaps around 21 weeks in 2022. However as others have noted here, although viability has changed, the severity of medical complications with declining gestation, has not changed, and is a very significant factor in the decision.

One reason the debate is so contentious, is that people are using these different bases for their positions, or combinations thereof. And is why the states will settle on different limits, depending on where in this spectrum of bases they fall.

Overall, Roe was probably the basis that was most justified & feasible, among the available bases, if the premises are that abortion is a form of medical care, and that religion is highly variable within the population. It was based on medicine, and as it turned out, the 1973 standard worked in favor of minimizing complications for early births. But this view is only valid for those who accept the premises noted above. Obviously many do not.

Kent350787 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Tugger wrote:

24 weeks was an arbitrary number as well

Tugg

I’d dispute that 24 weeks was just arbitrarily chosen. When set, it was generally accepted as the crossover point at which more embryos could survive than not.

Even now, 23 weeks gestation is considered a borderline below which the risk of serious disability is largely untenable. 23 weeks is the Dutch boundary for birth viability.

Obviously, over time as medical knowledge, practices and technology improves, that figure will slowly decrease, but today I don’t see any real issue with setting a limit for a choice at 23/24 weeks. Beyond that my view is that only medical emergencies should apply.

On Friday, an Arizona judge lifted a 1973 injunction on an 1860's law banning abortion within the then-territory of Arizona. The AG has argued that law now takes precedence over the law just passed by the Arizona state legislature, allowing abortion up to 15 weeks. Therefore abortions are now legally banned in Arizona.

The Governor has stated he believes the more recent legislation should have precedence, but has not interfered in the actions of the AG.

The judge based her ruling on the overturning of Roe, because Roe necessitated the injunction in 1973. Thus allowing the Civil War law to resume. She also said that left no basis for appeal on the injunction itself.

So now there will likely be legal action to re-injunct the older law, on the basis that it's been superceded by the current law, along with efforts to have the legislature formally repeal the older law.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a ... on-a-crime

So was the 1860's law never repealed?.

bennett123 wrote:

So was the 1860's law never repealed?.

Apparently not. Probably left it in place initially expecting Roe to not survive long, then may have not considered it recently when drafting new legislation.

To me it symbolizes how crazy the issue has become. As well as the hypocrisy of the "judicial legislation" argument. In this case the legislature did pass a law, but the judicial AG is choosing to ignore it in favor of another that he prefers, from 160 years ago.

Which was somewhat similar to the age of laws Justice Alito cited in the Dobbs decision. They have to reach back a long time to find laws that are consistent with their beliefs. That should tell you something.

An Arizona appeals court has stayed the lifting of an injunction on the Civil War era territorial law banning abortion, until the appeals process can resolve the question of precedence.

The AG had stated he would apply the older law over the recent legislation allowing abortion up to 15 weeks. He argued that the legislature would have expressly repealed the older law, if they did not intend it to take precedence.

The lower court judge had found there was no legal basis to sustain the injunction, in the wake of the Dobbs ruling which overturned Roe. But did not rule on the precedence issue itself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... arenthood/