If RvW Is Overturned

[Cecilie1200]

They will get rid of the filibuster and try to pass a federal Roe v wade law.

So no, they don't believe their bullshit about "settled law" OR "democracy!"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So no, they don't believe their bullshit about "settled law" OR "democracy!"

Maybe, maybe not. I don't care either way, personally. This became a dirty fight long ago. Any legal means. I know you're on board with that idea, so good luck.

 

[beautress]

Will the left continue believing in "settled law", or will they work to eventually overturn settled law because they no longer believe in the concept?

It is the right thing to do. The last time I studied up on abortion stats, the death toll on future Americans, many of whom carried founder and patriotic blood, the rate was a million deaths a year, nationwide. Social science tells us that a preborn infant does not have the same DNA pattern as either parent, although they jointly share in the formation of the new human being. The first stage of human life is the formation of a 2-cell zygote in which both cells have the same DNA which go forward dividing, carrying pretty much the same DNA as the 2-cell zygote that is formed when the ovum fuses with the sperm.

When a mother kills her own child at any stage on purpose, a little soul wings its way up to heaven, same as a 100-year old person who is deserving in God's sight. And that mommie and that daddy will have to face those little souls they got rid of for on purpose on judgment day. Blessed are those women who bore children no one else wanted and either put the child up for adoption to bless a childless couple or raised her own baby herself, with or without anybody else's support. God bless the mothers of courage who never got to finish school to support her own child and saw to it that child got an education by attending PTA meetings, making sure the child did his or her homework, and gave up every imaginable addictive substance in order to stay focused and healthy enough to raise the child. Bless those childbearing mothers who made the sacrifice for their children's good future in life. Bless all of them, every last one of them.

And God bless and forgive those mothers who were talked into an abortion only to realize later they ended a life wrongfully that deserved not only life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they might have blessed that mother in her old age when throw-away moms and dads can be quite lonely.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If roe v wade is overturned:

Huge protests. Younger people participating more at the polls. Bad results for Republicans for swing districts. Probably will win both chambers in 2022 anyway, but more narrowly than they think now. Another landslide democrat victory for president in 2024. And the same will probably go for the down ballot democrats in 2024.

Yeah, you really believe that abortion is a big, winning issue for you. That's why you're all breaking your necks to avoid ever letting anyone actually vote on it.

 

[Sandisk]

Big deal.
Roe v. Wade was lousy law making anyway.

If the left wants abortions, they have to base it on something better than Roe v Wade.
And if the right wants all abortions as illegal?
They are dreaming if they think that will happen for long.

I want abortion legal before brain activity.
After?
Illegal unless mother's life in danger.

I imagine in a few decades, that this is - more or less - what the law will be.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Then you should have no problem if she decides to separate that child from her body...

I have a major problem with it because each child is a precious gift from G-d. Oh but I forgot, people like you want G-d removed from the marketplace of ideas.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Will the left continue believing in "settled law", or will they work to eventually overturn settled law because they no longer believe in the concept?

Roe v wade can't be "settled law" because the supreme court doesn't make law. It's an opinion of a constitutional right to privacy which implies a right to an abortion as a privacy issue.

Scotus can't make abortion a constitutional right because abortion isn't in the Constitution, all they can do is say that women have a right to privacy in their personal and medical decisions.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They will get rid of the filibuster and try to pass a federal Roe v wade law.

Can they do that though? That would basically be congress passing a law about a medical procedure. Where else in our legislative process has there been a bill passed making a medical procedure legal, thus mandating that every state must perform this procedure.

I think there would be a lot of hurdles to that, which would end in a supreme court argument.

 

[tshrimp]

My consideration is going to both the mother and the child that would be unwanted. Guess what, a child not being wanted by the mother is not likely to lead a very happy life. But I forgot. Get them out of the womb and then well "shit out of luck" is perfectly fine.

Unwanted, so let’s kill it is not a solution.

 

[Calypso Jones]

The left's moral superiority in this abortion issue...demanding, DE. MANDING....that it NOT be called Murder...WHICH IT IS. The insistence on the killing of the unborn....by people who were carried to full term By their mothers, want to protect their own vaunted position by ignoring the desire for life...that ALL ThINGS POSSESS to the innocent and helpless.

well what does that make you? bully. Grown men who supposedly innately, inherently protect the innocent, the young, the helpless..and you want to allow them to be killed while you sit back and speechify about the mother's right to kill the baby growing inside her. you're wrong...and you know you're wrong otherwise you wouldn't be screaming..DON"T CALL IT MURDER. I can understand your confusion when we have women who proudly proclaim their last act of murder on their own child. Bloodthirsty lot.

 

[Calypso Jones]

No. It's that it should be the mother's choice, and she takes priority.

But you have spent so much time in your nutter movement, you actually think you are pro life, and those opposed are pro abortion.

No, dummy. You are anti-choice, and they are pro-choice. get it through your head.

right. I'm anti murder choice. YOU on the other hand are pro murder choice.

 

[scruffy]

No I don't. This isn't a game to women. We worked long and hard to get this right and we will NOT giving it up.

I support the concept that government has no right to reach into a woman's body.

And, I understand you're Canadian, so not sure how much you know about the technicalities on the American side.

Here's the rub: the Constitution says you have to be "born" to have political rights. To change that, would require a Constitutional amendment. 2/3 of the House and 3/4 of the States would have to agree. And in today's political climate, that would be a tall order.

It was even a tall order back in the 60's. So the Court did a little clever legislating from the bench, they extended the Constitutional protections backward as far as was reasonably possible (at the time, and even now).

What many conservatives don't understand, is that Roe v Wade is their FRIEND. Without Roe v Wade, the unborn would have no protections at all.

I don't support the overturning of Roe v Wade. And I also don't support the idea of Republicans piling on at this point, at this particular time.

Unfortunately, Justice Alito (or whoever wrote the draft opinion) is technically correct. Roe v Wade was judicial activism, it has no constitutional basis

If it was a Republican who leaked the draft, it was a stupid move, and if it was a Democrat, it was brilliant.

This is red meat for the 'Cons, they'll jump all over this, they won't be able to resist.

I'm libertarian, I don't like the idea of government controlling my body. Or anyone's body, for that matter. But I'm okay with leaving things the way they are, there's a working equilibrium right now and disrupting it in either direction would be painful

 

[Lisa558]

Big deal.
Roe v. Wade was lousy law making anyway.

If the left wants abortions, they have to base it on something better than Roe v Wade.
And if the right wants all abortions as illegal?
They are dreaming if they think that will happen for long.

I want abortion legal before brain activity.
After?
Illegal unless mother's life in danger.

I imagine in a few decades, that this is - more or less - what the law will be.

I don’t think the right wants all abortion as illegal. I want it to be up to the individual states, in accordance with the Constitution.

I doubt many states will outlaw it entirely; they will just have time restrictions, within the first several weeks. If someone is in a state like Texas that limits it to six weeks, that person will know that if they had unprotected sex and then miss their period, they have a couple of weeks to determine if they’re pregnant and then quickly arrange an abortion - or take a bus ride to another state later on.

Also, fetal brain activity can be detected by week 6, so your preference would align with the Texas law. Personally, I think 6 weeks does make it very rushed, and perhaps impossible, to figure out you’re pregnant and then get an abortion. I’d be OK with extending it another 2 weeks - so, week 8 - to kill your baby. That way, the woman has around a month to get to the doctor, test for pregnancy, and then get an abortion.

 

[Lisa558]

I support the concept that government has no right to reach into a woman's body.

And, I understand you're Canadian, so not sure how much you know about the technicalities on the American side.

Here's the rub: the Constitution says you have to be "born" to have political rights. To change that, would require a Constitutional amendment. 2/3 of the House and 3/4 of the States would have to agree. And in today's political climate, that would be a tall order.

It was even a tall order back in the 60's. So the Court did a little clever legislating from the bench, they extended the Constitutional protections backward as far as was reasonably possible (at the time, and even now).

What many conservatives don't understand, is that Roe v Wade is their FRIEND. Without Roe v Wade, the unborn would have no protections at all.

I don't support the overturning of Roe v Wade. And I also don't support the idea of Republicans piling on at this point, at this particular time.

Unfortunately, Justice Alito (or whoever wrote the draft opinion) is technically correct. Roe v Wade was judicial activism, it has no constitutional basis

If it was a Republican who leaked the draft, it was a stupid move, and if it was a Democrat, it was brilliant.

This is red meat for the 'Cons, they'll jump all over this, they won't be able to resist.

I'm libertarian, I don't like the idea of government controlling my body. Or anyone's body, for that matter. But I'm okay with leaving things the way they are, there's a working equilibrium right now and disrupting it in either direction would be painful

You’re correct in that the Roe v Wade was decided by an activist court, and that from a strict Constitutional interpretation, the decision was wrong.

Where I differ from you is the concept that government shouldn’t be able to control a woman’s body. That would be true if there were no other life at stake. But there is.

A good compromise position for conservative states would be to limit abortion to Week 8. Likewise, a good compromise position for liberal states would be to limit it to Week 16 (unlike VA’s Northam who discussed delivery a viable living baby - with proper feedings - and then deciding with the mother whether to let it die).

Anything beyond Week 16 should be limited to cases where the mother’s life is at stake.

 

[JoeB131]

I have a major problem with it because each child is a precious gift from G-d. Oh but I forgot, people like you want G-d removed from the marketplace of ideas.

 

[gtopa1]

Who would be the happiest if Roe V Wade is booted???

Greg

 

[JoeB131]

You’re correct in that the Roe v Wade was decided by an activist court, and that from a strict Constitutional interpretation, the decision was wrong.

Where I differ from you is the concept that government shouldn’t be able to control a woman’s body. That would be true if there were no other life at stake. But there is.

A good compromise position for conservative states would be to limit abortion to Week 8. Likewise, a good compromise position for liberal states would be to limit it to Week 16 (unlike VA’s Northam who discussed delivery a viable living baby - with proper feedings - and then deciding with the mother whether to let it die).

Anything beyond Week 16 should be limited to cases where the mother’s life is at stake.

Or you can just pay attention to your nasty uterus and let other women do what they want with theirs... that works, too.

Okay, serious answer time.

The problem here is that Roe was the court making law, which it shouldn't do. But really, they probably thought that Roe would be no more controversial than Griswold v. Connecticut, the ruling that struck down state bans on contraception. They were goofy laws no one was following and everyone was perfectly fine with getting rid of.

The Majority in Roe was made up of FIVE Republicans (appointed by Nixon and Ike) and 2 Democrats (Appointed by FDR and LBJ). In the years that followed, Republican Presidents had the good sense to appoint moderates to the court- Stephens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Roberts - to balance off against the far right clowns of Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

Unfortunately, Trump fucked up everything by appeasing the base by appointing the three least qualified fanatics he could find.

The thing was, Abortion laws were being routinely ignored by 1973, which is why the court stuck them down. They would be even harder enforce today with the internet making it very easy to contact covert providers and pills that induce abortion being available on the market.

 

[gtopa1]

Or you can just pay attention to your nasty uterus and let other women do what they want with theirs... that works, too.

Okay, serious answer time.

The problem here is that Roe was the court making law, which it shouldn't do. But really, they probably thought that Roe would be no more controversial than Griswold v. Connecticut, the ruling that struck down state bans on contraception. They were goofy laws no one was following and everyone was perfectly fine with getting rid of.

The Majority in Roe was made up of FIVE Republicans (appointed by Nixon and Ike) and 2 Democrats (Appointed by FDR and LBJ). In the years that followed, Republican Presidents had the good sense to appoint moderates to the court- Stephens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Roberts - to balance off against the far right clowns of Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

Unfortunately, Trump fucked up everything by appeasing the base by appointing the three least qualified fanatics he could find.

The thing was, Abortion laws were being routinely ignored by 1973, which is why the court stuck them down. They would be even harder enforce today with the internet making it very easy to contact covert providers and pills that induce abortion being available on the market.

Greg

 

[JoeB131]

Who would be the happiest if Roe V Wade is booted???

Here's why you fall into a fallacy.

Laws against abortion wouldn't save one baby.

There were just as many abortions happening before Roe as there were after. We know this because the birth rate did not drop in 1973 or 1974.

Today it would be even harder to enforce an abortion ban, because the internet will make it very easy to connect with covert providers and there are abortion pills on the market.

Want an even more poignant example. I give you, THE PHILIPPINES!!!

Abortion is illegal in all cases except for a threat to the life of the mothers.

yet every year, 500,000 to 800,000 Filipinas have illicit abortions.

Unintended Pregnancy and Unsafe Abortion in the Philippines: Context and Consequences

July 2013

www.guttmacher.org

Yikes. That's almost as many as we have in the US with only a third as many people

 

[gtopa1]

Here's why you fall into a fallacy.

Laws against abortion wouldn't save one baby.

There were just as many abortions happening before Roe as there were after. We know this because the birth rate did not drop in 1973 or 1974.

Today it would be even harder to enforce an abortion ban, because the internet will make it very easy to connect with covert providers and there are abortion pills on the market.

Want an even more poignant example. I give you, THE PHILIPPINES!!!

View attachment 640285

Abortion is illegal in all cases except for a threat to the life of the mothers.

yet every year, 500,000 to 800,000 Filipinas have illicit abortions.

Unintended Pregnancy and Unsafe Abortion in the Philippines: Context and Consequences

July 2013

www.guttmacher.org

Yikes. That's almost as many as we have in the US with only a third as many people

Greg