Pelosi Tells Democrats to Make Abortion Top Priority in 2024, Supports SCOTUS Term Limits
She’s such a devout Catholic, you guys.
Devout Catholic Nancy Pelosi told Democrats they have to make abortion a top priority in 2024.
As a Catholic, you’d think she’d mean keep it illegal. But we all know Pelosi is all for abortion:
Pelosi appeared on MSNBC’s “Inside with Jen Psaki” on Sunday for an extensive interview that focused heavily on abortion and the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Pelosi said abortion remains a winning issue for Democrats, and one that helped stave of disaster for the party in the 2022 midterm elections.
“Everybody said we’re going to lose 30, 40 seats,” Pelosi said of the 2022 elections. “Last time we lost five and everybody says you had the wrong message. They were saying to me, you’re going to owe an apology to the members because Dobbs is in the rearview mirror. But it wasn’t. It was up front, and it is right up in front of women in our country.”
We have been without Roe v. Wade for a year now. Thank God. Thank God some states have pushed to protect unborn human beings, too.
Pelosi did not say she wants to pack the court, but now she wants term limits.
Man, again, Democrats don’t get their way, and they want to change the rules:
Pelosi stopped short of calling on Democrats to pack the court, an idea some Democrats have endorsed since Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation solidified a 6-3 conservative majority on the court.
“The president formed a commission. They did not recommend expansion of the court. That shouldn’t be the end of it, but there certainly should be term limits,” Pelosi stated.
Pelosi is ticked that SCOTUS didn’t uphold precedent. I guess she wants segregation back then!
Pelosi also thinks the Constitution contains the “right to privacy.”
For someone who swears to uphold the Constitution, she sure doesn’t know what’s in it!
Then again, duh. We already knew that. No shock that she thinks the “right to privacy” is in the Constitution.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Pelosi suddenly wants term limits?
Well good, because she’s the perfect example of why they are so badly needed. In Congress that is.
, you are irrelevant.
Whoops, skip the last line. Someday I’ll learn to not post via my phone, I promise.
That’s like an alcoholic who drank a bottle of Jack Daniels every day of their life, but on their death bed claimed they supported prohibition.
Or Lizzo claiming she supports Weight Watchers.
She is such unmitigated corrupt, treasonous scum.
Go away, vile woman.
Pelosi should do the right thing, stop converting oxygen into CO2. And then there is her methane production. Pelosi could fix both problems by breathing a bit of CO.
It’s good advice. Abortion prohibitions in various states now identify Republicans as a menace to women and the Dems will pick up a lot of votes on it. It’s their strongest issues in fact, since the Dems are morons on everything else.
It’s the thing to campaign on.
Fool, Leftists don’t even know what a woman is. The only menace to women have ALWAYS been Democrats and Leftists. You Leftists are depraved monsters.
When I see her spewing nonsense, all I see is their corruption, Insider trading, and lying to the American people. Anybody who listens to anything that comes out of this old bags mouth, is as nuts as she is.
That is true. The swing voters in swing states are moderate suburbanites. Their votes matter more than anyone else’s in national elections. They do care very much that their daughters can access abortion no fuss no muss when they are in high school or college.
Considering that the States where the legislature adopted limitations on abortion have an electoral majority in favor those restrictions I don’t see the problem. If Alabama adopts restrictions it doesn’t impact someone living in Massachusetts. That’s the beauty of Federalism which the Dobbs decision returned us to.
Of course what Pelosi is advocating here is to return abortion to center stage as a national issue. The GoP and pro-life advocates should resist the temptation b/c that might have an impact in some Swing States. Keep the issue at the State level where the policy can best reflect the will of that State electorate. A final reason against attempting a national abortion policy is that the inevitable compromise legislation will be weaker than the restrictions in place by many/most Red States.
Pelosi is doing her utmost to resurrect the anti-life cause on the national level in order to create a perception of her still being relevant.
That’s not going to happen because that war is over. SCOTUS has made its decision and it’s about as final as such decisions can be.
Which leaves the state level, where the desiccated yet consistently inebriated hag is even more irrelevant.
You mean “abortion enthusiast, princess of the D’Allesandro crime family and dried up scrunt” Pelosi.
The Right to Lifers screwed the GOP by not turning out in 2022. They got Roe overturned and quit voting. Meanwhile, all us conservatives electioneering out front were getting flipped off by all the Affluent White Female Liberals. AWFL aka Awfuls.
The Abortionists are going to turn out. They are fired up. But, I am betting the Pro-Lifers are going to stay home again in 2024.
Any politician that aligns with Pro-Life better realize they are not dependable for the long term.
Incorrect. Pro-lfers turned out. It was sorry conservative pols who were afraid of being called anti-woman who didn’t fight for the vote.
We are dealing with a party who now thinks a man can be a woman simply because he says he is. If conservative pols can’t turn that into a winning issue then they deserve to lose.
That’s an interesting claim. Is there polling data or other evidence other than anecdotal to support it?
I ask b/c everything seems to point in 2020 and 2022 to the d/prog ID voters who seldom vote and using an influx of cash to create a turn out machine to get them (or at least their ballot) to the voting booth, while taking full advantage of the relaxed ballot security /voter integrity laws. Which is why cleaning up the voter registration list is so important; remove the questionable /fraudulent/ ineligible registrations and the universe of ballots shrinks considerably. Doing so makes it much more difficult to show up with a trunk full of ballots or otherwise game the system.
Pro-choice policies, in isolation, did well. Five statewide ballot measures all came out in favor of abortion rights, even in red states like Kentucky and Montana. That’s on top of an August win for abortion rights supporters on a Kansas ballot measure.
So, either pro-lifers did not turn out. Or, they don’t exist.
For the record Kentucky has a d/prog Gov as does Kansas while Montana has a d/prog Senator so they ain’t exactly bright Red across the board.
Montana already has a restriction to viability and much of what the proposal would do was already cover by other Federal and State statutes. As it is in the other State examples.
Kansas outcome is interesting but much of the import is lost IMO due to confusingly worded choices in the yes/no question. Voting Yes effectively meant no more abortion rights in the Kansas constitution; which was a judicial not legislative construction. Vote No = allowing abortion. Confusing to voters.
Kentucky already has a ban after 15 weeks passed by the legislature in April of’22 and then again by override of the veto of the d/prog Gov. The ballot measure to clarify that no right to abortion exists was rejected, that’s true. It was, according to most exit polls, overbroad and made no exceptions for life of mother, rape, incest physical deformity/health of fetus.
I wouldn’t hang my hat on these examples. In all three cases existing laws already substantially limit abortion in these States. As well the ballot questions tended to be overreaching in the eyes of voters and/or had confusing language.
Pelosi wants a SCOTUS that protects “our democracy”-meaning advancing only the views of Democrats and the woke left
Pelosi is ticked that SCOTUS didn’t uphold precedent.
She’s ticked they didn’t uphold precedent a previous court created out of whole cloth. Ratchet effect.
Precedent: Some bs which means leave court opinions which benefit Democrats alone.
Conservatives better learn to fight for unborn babies at ALL times and without shame.
I agree every conservative position except abortion. There was a time when sexual urges were aligned with the time people were ready to settle down and start families, today there is a 10 year gap. Young people are rash and do stupid things, like pregnancy’s. Thye do not have maturity, job skills needed to raise children.
So I see abortion as the lessor evil, Children deserve a stable upbringing. Society deserves well raised children,
The last thing we need are more unwanted children., children like we see coming from city environments.
Do you also oppose divorce? A child in a single parent household is at every possible statistical disadvantage. What you are describing very much reflects lack of maturity in you people.
Do you therefore support raising the age of adulthood from 18 to 28 to account for your claimed ten year gap? Keep in mind that by changing the age of legal maturity you would also delay their ability to sign a contract, vote or be held accountable as an adult by our Judicial system.
A better idea IMO is to end govt assistance for unwed mothers, Institute mandatory DNA test for every birth and remove children from a mother who can’t accurately ID the Father. Couple that with a societal shift back to the expectation of a shotgun wedding and a great many social problems will be solved.
I agree about welfare, wish that people would be adult enough to stay married & do right by their children, agree that children should be removed from bad homes, but question who would want those children, Society is drowning in children who then become criminals. That is a tough nut to crack.
The closest we can come is instituting the sort of societal and financial pressures I outlined to nudge/compel folks to do the right thing by the children.
In other words a return to 1900 style societal expectations of family structure; get and stay married, get preggo = shotgun wedding, divorce only for proven traditional reasons such as physical abuse, infidelity. No fault divorce must be eliminated to have any hope of putting kids first.
“Society is drowning in children who then become criminals. That is a tough nut to crack.”
If we really cared about this, we wouldn’t have an open border.
This is a “cutting off my d*k to end rape” argument. The problem isn’t my d*k.
I think you’re confusing cause and effect.
If murder is a solution for babies it’s a good solution for adults. You obviously don’t agree with this, bit why should murdering babies be a viable solution but not adults?
I think that there are people who should not be parents and that do to children is worse than abortion. Those children are doomed from the start. Life often requires tough choices, lots of shades of gray.
For example Trayvon Martin had shitty parents who were unwilling what they should have done. Trayvon’s fate was his parents fault, not George Zimmerman’s. Cost for society of piss poor parents is staggering. His parents did not have time or will to give him the attention he need, but when it came to running their scam, they had unlimited time of Trayvon.
Term limits for Federal legislators – both House and Senate – first, then we’ll think about the Supreme Court.
Hey, the gay pope loves her.
“Supports SCOTUS Term Limits”
You first, Nefertiti.
“No shock that she thinks the “right to privacy” is in the Constitution.”
So do I. It’s reserved by the Tenth Amendment for powers not specifically delegated elsewhere
But murder isn’t justified by a “right to privacy” any more than it’s justified by a “right to keep and bear arms.”
Pelosi wants Term Limits for SCOTUS but not for anyone else. I want Term Limits for all of government:
– 3 Terms for House
– 2 Terms for Senate
– 20 years total time in Judiciary for any Judge including SCOTUS
– All government whether Admin or other staff (Congressional or Judiciary) can only be total of 20 years.
Until we can get rid of the imbedded people in government there will be no change. This will require Amendments to be passed.
Don’t kid yourselves. She only supports term limits for justices until they manage to regain a majority, after which it’ll never be mentioned again.
Ask the Democrats why they have not put forth a bill to start the process of making abortion a right via the Constitutional amendment process.
This then returns the problem to the states, which they don’t trust.
The excuses for not doing it will be educational.
Pelosi and the Democrats screeching on about Dobbs is like BLM bemoaning George Floyd’s death. In both cases it was and is the gift that keeps on giving.
“No shock that she thinks the “right to privacy” is in the Constitution.”
First Newsom, then The Eternal Pelosi, talking like what the Constitution says matters. What’s going on in Cali?
(Ohhhh, that they would declare an actual “right to privacy.” Really, you wannt do that? Well, there’s this “right to privacy” thing here…
Bring on the constitutional convention, people. They don’t want to even think about what might come out of that.)