Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Iowa
Related: About this forumGraham Confirms Re-Electing Grassley Means National Abortion Ban Vote
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina on Tuesday introduced a nationwide abortion ban in the Senate.
Though the ban wont move forward in the Democratic-controlled Senate this year, its a signal for what Republicans will try to do if they retake Congress.
Theres signs that both of Iowas senators would potentially be on board with such a vote.
...
When pressed by an audience member whether hed specifically support action at the federal level, Grassley demurred and only mentioned elected representatives again, without narrowing that to only the state.
Well Grassley said, then paused. Im going to leave that up to the constitutional lawyers. What weve done is gone from unelected people making a decision to letting the elected representatives of the people make a decision.
When asked by a reporter asked if Grassley thinks the question should be decided by states, Grassley said, Well, thats unless something happens either through a court decision or through action that Congress takes.
...https://iowastartingline.com/2022/09/14/graham-confirms-re-electing-grassley-means-national-abortion-ban-vote/
Though the ban wont move forward in the Democratic-controlled Senate this year, its a signal for what Republicans will try to do if they retake Congress.
Theres signs that both of Iowas senators would potentially be on board with such a vote.
...
When pressed by an audience member whether hed specifically support action at the federal level, Grassley demurred and only mentioned elected representatives again, without narrowing that to only the state.
Well Grassley said, then paused. Im going to leave that up to the constitutional lawyers. What weve done is gone from unelected people making a decision to letting the elected representatives of the people make a decision.
When asked by a reporter asked if Grassley thinks the question should be decided by states, Grassley said, Well, thats unless something happens either through a court decision or through action that Congress takes.
...https://iowastartingline.com/2022/09/14/graham-confirms-re-electing-grassley-means-national-abortion-ban-vote/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 2000 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Graham Confirms Re-Electing Grassley Means National Abortion Ban Vote (Original Post)
progressoid
Sep 2022
OP
Eliot Rosewater
(32,536 posts)1. I wonder how many millions of voters still see NO reason to vote.
Bet you it is high.
Lovie777
(14,994 posts)2. Something afoot ....
I'll say GA investigation.
erronis
(16,825 posts)3. For a worthless old fool, Grassley still knows how to two-step.
Reminds me of some other good mumblers - Thurmond, McTurtle
CentralMass
(15,537 posts)4. Did that weasel Grahm ever testify in GA ?
LoisB
(8,639 posts)5. What we've done is gone from unelected people making a decision to letting the elected
representatives of the people make a decision. Most of us are "unelected people" and we would rather make our OWN decisions about our bodies than have some "elected representaive" make those decisions for us. Whatever happened to government not coming between a patient and doctor they were making so much noise about when arguing against the ACA?