If Roe v. Wade Goes

D

deleted15807

Guest
NY Times ran an editorial today highlighting the very real possibility that a woman's right for 40 years could be overturned by a Romney win. It seems most voters are really unaware how tenuous the ruling stands.


It would not take much to overturn the Roe decision. With four of the nine members of the Supreme Court over 70 years old, the next occupant of the White House could have the opportunity to appoint one or more new justices. If say, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest member, retired and Mr. Romney named a replacement hostile to abortion rights, the basic right to abortion might well not survive.

(almost overnight the right to an abortion would vanish)

The result would turn back the clock to the days before Roe v. Wade when abortion was legal only in some states, but not in others. There is every indication that about half the states would make abortion illegal within a year of Roe being struck down, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenges abortion restrictions around the country, puts the number at 30 states. For one thing, abortion bans already on the books in some states would suddenly kick in. And some Republican-controlled state legislatures would outlaw abortion immediately.
 

AtomicMouse1950

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 30, 2011
Posts
2,968
Media
22
Likes
460
Points
218
Age
73
Location
Placerville , Ca.
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I disagree with the NYtimes. This has already been decided by the Supreme Court! They're not going to revisit this. The Congress needs to have a majority to overturn it. They haven't been able to do it, in 40 years, that will tell you something. It's being totally ignored. Its already been decided.


NY Times ran an editorial today highlighting the very real possibility that a woman's right for 40 years could be overturned by a Romney win. It seems most voters are really unaware how tenuous the ruling stands.


It would not take much to overturn the Roe decision. With four of the nine members of the Supreme Court over 70 years old, the next occupant of the White House could have the opportunity to appoint one or more new justices. If say, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest member, retired and Mr. Romney named a replacement hostile to abortion rights, the basic right to abortion might well not survive.

(almost overnight the right to an abortion would vanish)

The result would turn back the clock to the days before Roe v. Wade when abortion was legal only in some states, but not in others. There is every indication that about half the states would make abortion illegal within a year of Roe being struck down, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenges abortion restrictions around the country, puts the number at 30 states. For one thing, abortion bans already on the books in some states would suddenly kick in. And some Republican-controlled state legislatures would outlaw abortion immediately.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I disagree with the NYtimes. This has already been decided by the Supreme Court! They're not going to revisit this. The Congress needs to have a majority to overturn it. They haven't been able to do it, in 40 years, that will tell you something. It's being totally ignored. Its already been decided.

So has Affirmative Action but what are they doing right now but looking at it again? The Supremes can overturn Roe v. Wade and Congress has no say whatsoever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
You mean it would be up to the states to decide?

You say that like it's a good thing.

Basic human rights should not be up for grabs on a state-by-state level. Of course, people disagree vehemently as to whether abortion falls within this category.

But in any case, it makes little sense to have a patchwork of different laws across the nation on an issue so fundamental.
 

Penis Aficionado

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Posts
2,949
Media
0
Likes
1,196
Points
198
Location
Austin (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
As an ardently pro-choice person, I think the reversal of Roe v. Wade and the outlawing of abortion might be the best thing to ever happen here in my home state of Texas, politically speaking.

When upper-middle-class Republicans find out that their politics require their own college-track, overachieving daughters to become teenage moms, eyes will be opened.

As with Vietnam and busing, change will come when politics hits home, in the most personal of ways, and across class lines.
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
So has Affirmative Action but what are they doing right now but looking at it again? The Supremes can overturn Roe v. Wade and Congress has no say whatsoever.

Hmmm...

Unelected judges,
legislating from the bench,
with no recourse about their decisions.

I find it curious that *precisely* the same concerns that have been voiced by Conservatives over the past few years, are now being voiced by Liberals. Yes, I appreciate the irony.

As to RvW, it is improbable that the availability of abortions would change, though if the case itself was overturned it *might* become a state's rights issue.

I wonder if the posters here realize that states don't automatically make stuff illegal, unless forced by the federal government.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
As an ardently pro-choice person, I think the reversal of Roe v. Wade and the outlawing of abortion might be the best thing to ever happen here in my home state of Texas, politically speaking.

When upper-middle-class Republicans find out that their politics require their own college-track, overachieving daughters to become teenage moms, eyes will be opened.

As with Vietnam and busing, change will come when politics hits home, in the most personal of ways, and across class lines.

Maybe, but maybe not, because the wealthy and well to do at least will have their "family doctors" who'll quietly "take care of it", as they've always done in the past for abortions, STD's, drug addictions etc.

It's those who rely on general hospitals and clinics who'll be most affected. Not that they'll be any pre-natal care, or post birth health care or child care support of any kind either (short of private insurance or Medicaid for those with low incomes), since Republicans will have killed off the Affordable Care Act too.
 

ryan25yo

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Posts
1,304
Media
5
Likes
2,541
Points
268
Location
Florida
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
NY Times ran an editorial today highlighting the very real possibility that a woman's right for 40 years could be overturned by a Romney win. It seems most voters are really unaware how tenuous the ruling stands.


It would not take much to overturn the Roe decision. With four of the nine members of the Supreme Court over 70 years old, the next occupant of the White House could have the opportunity to appoint one or more new justices. If say, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest member, retired and Mr. Romney named a replacement hostile to abortion rights, the basic right to abortion might well not survive.

(almost overnight the right to an abortion would vanish)

The result would turn back the clock to the days before Roe v. Wade when abortion was legal only in some states, but not in others. There is every indication that about half the states would make abortion illegal within a year of Roe being struck down, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenges abortion restrictions around the country, puts the number at 30 states. For one thing, abortion bans already on the books in some states would suddenly kick in. And some Republican-controlled state legislatures would outlaw abortion immediately.
Question: Do women also have a RIGHT to have the taxpayers PAY FOR IT????
 

AtomicMouse1950

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 30, 2011
Posts
2,968
Media
22
Likes
460
Points
218
Age
73
Location
Placerville , Ca.
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm not going to weigh in too much on this issue. Simply because I'm not a woman, and it's not up to the Government to legislate what a woman can or can't do with her own body. We need to get Government out of our bedrooms. If the Republicans are serious about Government intervention, then this topic needs to shut down. You can't have small Government, and tell people what they can or can't do behind closed doors. Includes gay men and women, abortion, woman's right to choose, planned parenthood.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
You mean it would be up to the states to decide?

You should look up the Republican Party platform and see what it says about abortion as well as any state options. Hint: there are none.
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
... it's not up to the Government to legislate what a woman can or can't do with her own body. We need to get Government out of our bedrooms. ...
You can't have small Government, and tell people what they can or can't do behind closed doors.

AM, this is a day to remember. You and I are actually in agreement on something.
 

AtomicMouse1950

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 30, 2011
Posts
2,968
Media
22
Likes
460
Points
218
Age
73
Location
Placerville , Ca.
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
AM, this is a day to remember. You and I are actually in agreement on something.
That is the point of Roe v. Wade. Take Government out of the decision making of how women take care of the bodies. You can't be for small Government, and abortion, or gay rights for that matter. Stop the insanity. That means the Law that the Supreme Court decided 40 years ago, should stand. small G
 

h0neymustard

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Posts
2,668
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
73
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You say that like it's a good thing.

Basic human rights should not be up for grabs on a state-by-state level. Of course, people disagree vehemently as to whether abortion falls within this category.

But in any case, it makes little sense to have a patchwork of different laws across the nation on an issue so fundamental.

Abortion isn't even a "human right" according to the U.N., and I frankly give them NO credence. Democrats are just trying to redefine rights.
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
...
Basic human rights should not be up for grabs on a state-by-state level. Of course, people disagree vehemently as to whether abortion falls within this category.
...

I'm going to take a purposefully extreme stance, to make the point.

Let me get this straight...you believe that killing your children is a basic human right?! That's what a fetus is, after all...your child!

But, on a more reasonable level...abortion is a valid medical procedure which is sometimes necessary, and thus should not be *illegal,* but the push to view it as some sort of day-after birth control, with no moral considerations or consequences, is very offensive to me.

Human rights should extend to all humans...that's kinda the definition, after all. And, that would include unborn children, as I see it.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Abortion isn't even a "human right" according to the U.N., and I frankly give them NO credence. Democrats are just trying to redefine rights.

Without redefining rights (or extending existing definitions further), we would never have seen an end to slavery, or women getting the vote.

So yes, it's an ongoing process.
 
Last edited:

blazblue

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Posts
1,195
Media
0
Likes
35
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm going to take a purposefully extreme stance, to make the point.

Let me get this straight...you believe that killing your children is a basic human right?! That's what a fetus is, after all...your child!

But, on a more reasonable level...abortion is a valid medical procedure which is sometimes necessary, and thus should not be *illegal,* but the push to view it as some sort of day-after birth control, with no moral considerations or consequences, is very offensive to me.

Human rights should extend to all humans...that's kinda the definition, after all. And, that would include unborn children, as I see it.

So you see abortion as offensive while at the same time see nothing wrong with a bunch of old men who think that everyone should make they're own choices without government involvement that then turn around and dictate what women should do with their bodies? You see nothing wrong with a government that thinks we should protect the fetus while at the same time, getting rid of planned parenthood just so that we can have "freedom" from the government?
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm going to take a purposefully extreme stance, to make the point.

Let me get this straight...you believe that killing your children is a basic human right?! That's what a fetus is, after all...your child!

As you say, a purposefully extreme stance. The counter-argument, of course, is that women (and men, too, if they could get pregnant) have the right to control their own bodies.

But, on a more reasonable level...abortion is a valid medical procedure which is sometimes necessary, and thus should not be *illegal,* but the push to view it as some sort of day-after birth control, with no moral considerations or consequences, is very offensive to me.

You'd have to take that up with whoever you think holds that view.

Human rights should extend to all humans...that's kinda the definition, after all. And, that would include unborn children, as I see it.

That's why abortion is such a difficult issue. And why I acknowledged up front, with no disrespect to either side, that people disagree vehemently.