'If Roe v. Wade can fall, anything can fall,' says Jeffries in stressing importance of elections

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Hill

05/05/24 10:25 PM ET


House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) emphasized the stakes of the 2024 election in a “60 Minutes” interview on Sunday, warning that much more than abortion rights are at risk if former President Trump gets a second term. He told CBS’ Norah O’Donnell that reproductive freedom will be an “incredibly significant” issue in the race.

“And the extreme MAGA Republicans have set in motion the erosion of reproductive freedom,” he said. “We’re gonna fight for it with everything that we’ve got at our disposal.”

“If Roe v. Wade can fall, anything can fall,” he continued. “Social Security can fall. Medicare can fall. Voting rights can fall. And God help us all, but democracy itself can fall. If Roe v. Wade can fall, then anything can fall.”

Jeffries’ comments come as Democrats turn their sights on battleground states focusing on abortion rights arguments, as Arizona, Florida, Montana and others prepare for abortion rights ballot issues.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4645264-if-roe-v-wade-can-fall-anything-can-fall-says-jeffries-in-stressing-importance-of-elections/

[CousinIT]

1. Damn right. My dumb MAGA relatives: "they'll never get rid of social security, they can't do that!"

Oh REALLY?

The fuck they can't. If they overturned Roe they can get rid of or cut, gut, and privatize social security & Medicare and they WILL when they no longer need our votes. This will be about 100 days or so into a 2nd Trump admin, when any semblance of a Democratic Republic will be gone and our "elections" will be like Russia's - if we have them at all. Our votes won't be worth shit and they can do whatever they want.

It's a VERY DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION that "they won't", or "they can't" get rid of social security.

THEY CAN AND THEY WILL.

Now, of course, MAGAt family isn't going to listen to ME on that. If I mention it it, I get: "Oh they're just trying to scare people!" (Yeah, people OUGHT to be scared right now if they have any common sense at all).

They never listen to me, yet more often than not it turns out I'm right about such things -- NOT that they would ever admit that to themselves or me.

They're hurting themselves. I'm fine with that if they want to be stupid. BUT THEY'RE ALSO HURTING ME and everyone else with their dangerous assumptions and willful ignorance.

[bluestarone]

2. My biggest come back would be

IF they DO, what are they gonna do about it? There would be NOTHING anyone can do. Fricken DUMMIES.

[Farmer-Rick]

7. I find this attitude, that the GOP and the stinking Nazi

Won't actually do what they say they are going to do, to be rampant among my neighbors.

I asked a group of GOPers, holding up signs supporting the stinking Nazi, weren't they afraid of losing their Social Security and Medicare (they were all elderly)if he gets back into office?

Their response was, "Oh no he won't do that to us. We support him and he knows not to do that to us."

Yeah, like he's going to care about who falls into poverty when he ends Social Security and Medicare. They are so delusional. They tell themselves lies in order to vote in their own racism, bigotry and cruelty.

[Marthe48]

3. I can't help thinking how the coin has flipped

Since Row became law of the land, the forced birthers have fought to get it repealed, used lawsuits, threats, intimidation, got laws passed to limit access and all of the others ploys, finally corrupted the (formerly) s.c. . Took the shits 50 years, all along the way, we heard, they won't, they can't.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot and advocates for reproductive freedom will once again have to use every tool in the bag to get reproductive freedom codified for the nation. I just hope it doesn't take as long this time as it did last time, and that any protection is bullerporrf.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. The difference though

is that reproductive rights were never "federally codified" and was only permitted by some of the states. So Roe merely sought to enforce several Constitutional Amendments that were violated when those remaining states restricted it.

We need to get it federally established in statute and tell the loons to go pound sand. It won't keep a RW SCOTUS from messing with it again (like they have messed with the codified VRA) but at least it gets it "on the books".

[h2ebits]

10. YES, YES, YES

The Supreme Court overturning Roe vs Wade actually created a glaring issue that hasn't seen the light of day. That issue is the assumption that once the Supreme Court "rules" on something we assume it is done.

In fact, there are many things that the Supreme Court has ruled on and have not been codified. We have been doing a sloppy job of handling our democratic republic.

[NanaCat]

13. Oh FFS.

I'm getting sick of people not getting this one simple reality:

CODIFICATION IS NOT ENOUGH

I apparently need to shout this because only the hopelessly naive don't comprehend that the USSC can overturn mere laws, as part of their power of checks and balances. Bloody f'n hell, the traitor justices were on the brink of killing the ACA--and could have--and that, too was solely legislation.

LEGISLATION ALONE NEVER WOULD HAVE PROTECTED REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS. Only a Constitutional Amendment will give the traitors no room to maneuver. That's what we have to work toward, and it will not be easy.

WAKE UP.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. Did you miss this in my post?

It won't keep a RW SCOTUS from messing with it again (like they have messed with the codified VRA) but at least it gets it "on the books".

where I even gave an example of something "codified' - the VRA (VOTING RIGHTS ACT) that the SCOTUS HAS messed with (killing Sections 4 & 5).

What makes it different with at least making it federal law is that it takes time to work through the courts vs completely reversing a court ruling that comes because it was declared not to be codified federally anywhere. I.e., based on arguments from a RW state health official who wanted his state's (MS) more restrictive law to not be bound to Roe or Planned Parenthood v Casey.

You DO realize what it takes for a Constitutional Amendment, right?

THAT massive burden is why after 52 years, the ERA STILL HASN'T BEEN RATIFIED. It doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen but in the meantime, get it on the books.

[Ziggysmom]

5. Wasn't Jeffries awesome on 60 Minutes? My husband doesn't initiate too much political

discourse, but he said to me, "Who would you want as a leader of our country, this man Jeffries, or the orange felon?

[Farmer-Rick]

8. Surprised the crap out of me

To see a corporate media organization actually do a half decent interview of a Democratic leader.

[AllaN01Bear]

6. my late mom once said , let it go down. let it all go down, then they will complain how good they had it.

[orangecrush]

9. Truth

[republianmushroom]

11. Jeffries is correct, almost.

What can not fall is the 2nd Amendment. There have been a lot of tries. But it is still there.

[NanaCat]

12. What I've been trying to get across to people

I've seen demands for 'codification' for countering the loss of Roe...but that is no protection from a USSC bent on misogyny. I don't know how often I have to point this out to the shockingly naive, but they aren't limited to overturning previous court cases. They can nullify legislative laws, too, because--wait for it--that's what checks and balances between the branches is all about. The USSC can cancel laws passed by Congress. They've done it before, and they can do it again.

The only protection any right can have is if it's put into the Constitution itself by Amendment. Nothing else will protect Roe.

Now how likely are we to get that in this sick, hateful country?

Not at all right now, but the ball has to start somewhere. We need to start the long, arduous process of getting such an Amendment passed. It will not be easy. It probably won't happen in my remaining lifetime. But it's the only way to get reproductive rights locked down, once and for all.

[Dulcinea]

14. Any talk of reviving the ERA?

A constitutional amendment would put this issue to bed...right??

[FakeNoose]

16. Roe should have been codified 40 years ago!

Yes Hakeem Jeffries is correct, but Congress had the solution and they failed to implement it. They could have written the law and passed it in both Houses that guarantees our access to reproductive freedom and proper healthcare for all women.

Roe v. Wade was always a tenuous ruling that didn't "guarantee" anything. Congress needed to codify it once and for all. Instead they dithered and failed to get it done. It's always up to Democrats to take on the hard job of leading nd legislating ... because the Repukes will never do it.