Ok. From the party of “states rights” that’s a bit hypocritical of them. I mean- they applauded Dodds which basically did the exact opposite of this- forcing states to regulate abortion rather than a uniform federal standard.

Dobbs did not force states to regulate abortion. It allowed them to.

Yes, that's the hypocrisy.

Abortion: "Let the states regulate! States' rights! Small government! (Because we know we'll get our way in a lot of them.)"

AI: "Don't let the states regulate! All hail the Feds! (Because we know we won't get our way if they do.)"

I agree that the policy approach is inconsistent with regards to states' rights. I was simply pointing out that your statement about the effects of Dobbs was false.

Not my statement.

ah correct, the statement I was replying to.

Unless the Feds are planning to regulate - which, for the next few years, seems unlikely - that's functionally the same.

So wild. The Republican party has hard-pivoted to a strong, centralized federal government and their base just came along for the ride.

The strong federal government that bans regulation?

They're not banning regulation, they want total control over it.

They in fact are banning regulation at the state and local level.

Yes, which is a big fat regulation on what states and local governments can do.

Would removing their regulation to ban regulation be banning regulation or not?

I haven't followed those discussions (assuming there have been any kind of public discussions) but I guess the justification behind this is that IA is such a strategic industry for the USA that no state should dare to interfere.

Like, say, the development of nuclear weapons. Wouldn't that have been awfull for the US people if, for instance, say the state of Nevada or the Marshall Islands could have banned nuclear tests..? /s

Yes, you're certainly right about that, without the /s.