Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

chic said:
RVW was a quantum leap forward. My body, my choice. How can we survive as a nation when something so fundamental is overturned?
Click to expand...
If this ruling is overturned, and half the States institute severe restrictions on Abortion, there will be a large number of women having to travel to neighboring states to get the care they need. There will be a abortion "tourist industry" for those who can afford to do so. The poor will wind up getting some "back alley" treatment that will put their lives in danger....much like past events that led to the passage of R vs. W, in the first place.

I just can't see any logical or sensible reasoning behind this move by the SCOTUS.
 

how do the women get preggers? surely men have nothing to do with it Except for telling the
woman what she can cant do with the rest of her life.

why arent the big deal pol men requesting, requiring, running ads they so enjoy, about men having
vasectomies?.....why does it all fall upon the woman who then gets treated like crap by the men who
dont wont or havent had vasectomies to prevent pregnancies??

they market and sell all sorta pills for males to sex function then blame and punish the women for the end results.

this is so one sided its ridiculous and isnt that why RVW was enacted to begin with, to allow some moderation
in how women get preg, when they get preg and IF they get preg.
it is not all up to the males despite what rich pols conjure. women have Choices.

next time around women, and men, can turn to one another for sex, that way no one gets preg.
doesnt mean youre gay just means you want sex and Not pregnancy.

i think from what ive read this was fairly common practice in prior earlier more ancient civilizations
where population size was of great concern for the entire civilization running out of foods veg and trees.
they avoided pregnancies, or sex with women since women got pregnant.
it wasnt a matter of gay...but a matter of having sex Not turning into babies.

of course when women get preg all the time they are far easier to control, as so many of our pols prefer. :(
 
Don M. said:
I just can't see any logical or sensible reasoning behind this move by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
I know many people thought this argument was settled. I am sort of a "if ain't broke, don't fix it" type of guy.

After reading the leaked opinion by the majority, it appears that the Justices voting felt that the states should handle abortion laws and not nine Justices. By giving the power back to the states, their citizens may have an opportunity to vote on whether their state should allow abortions with or without restrictions. It is also possible that the state Legislature could decide what would or wouldn't be acceptable.

Many states already have their own abortion laws on the books. Canada also allows abortions. Personally, I have always been confused about my feelings on this topic, so I don't share my opinions one way or the other.
 
Lewkat said:
This raises the question then, why did the Supreme Court choose to even consider Roe vs. Wade? There is not one word in the Constitution that addresses abortion in any shape form or manner. This was a state's issue in Texas where abortion was outlawed. I feel this woman pushed an issue to its utmost by making it a cause celebre on the national level. The S.C. should have sent it right back to Texas and never touched it.
Click to expand...
The District Court opinion was challenged directly to the USSC, based on, in part:

314 F. Supp. 1217

(3) The fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
oldman said:
I know many people thought this argument was settled. I am sort of a "if ain't broke, don't fix it" type of guy.

After reading the leaked opinion by the majority, it appears that the Justices voting felt that the states should handle abortion laws and not nine Justices. By giving the power back to the states, their citizens may have an opportunity to vote on whether their state should allow abortions with or without restrictions. It is also possible that the state Legislature could decide what would or wouldn't be acceptable.

Many states already have their own abortion laws on the books. Canada also allows abortions. Personally, I have always been confused about my feelings on this topic, so I don't share my opinions one way or the other.
Click to expand...
slightly off topic.. because I had no idea what state legislators do. I looked it up, and in the process came across this... Let's hope this person doesn't have say so over the laws where any of you live... *Yikes*

 
hollydolly said:
slightly off topic.. because I had no idea what state legislators do. I looked it up, and in the process came across this... Let's hope this person doesn't have say so over the laws where any of you live... *Yikes*

Click to expand...
Are you referring to the cop?
 
Oh, she’s not a state legislator. Didn’t she say that she only earned $20,000 last year as a county legislator? Only state legislators would have authority to make laws re:abortion. I would imagine that county legislators only make local laws, but her car looks like it has a New York plate, so I’m not sure if I am right.

But, even still, she sounded a little out of control. I do agree with her argument though, if she was being truthful. If she was moving with the flow of traffic, she should have been given a pass, in my opinion. Don’t most of us move with the flow of traffic? To pick one vehicle out of how many others that were moving as fast or perhaps faster is kind of unfair. I wouldn’t have a license very long in that city. I do have a heavy foot.
 
oldman said:
Oh, she’s not a state legislator. Didn’t she say that she only earned $20,000 last year as a county legislator? Only state legislators would have authority to make laws re:abortion. I would imagine that county legislators only make local laws, but her car looks like it has a New York plate, so I’m not sure if I am right.

But, even still, she sounded a little out of control. I do agree with her argument though, if she was being truthful. If she was moving with the flow of traffic, she should have been given a pass, in my opinion. Don’t most of us move with the flow of traffic? To pick one vehicle out of how many others that were moving as fast or perhaps faster is kind of unfair. I wouldn’t have a license very long in that city. I do have a heavy foot.
Click to expand...
right I see, so there's a difference between state and county legislators is there ?

I do think she was completely over the top hysteical for a little speeding stop..but then it transpires she didn't have insurance or an uptodate licence... and of course, everybody should stay at the speed limit or less, regardless if other people are going faster.. it was a ridiculous argument that he shouldn't have stopped HER, and not stopped evreyone else ..one cop can only stop one speeding driver at a time.. however , she was clearly nuts, so it's not surprising that she had that weird train of thought
 
ohioboy said:
The District Court opinion was challenged directly to the USSC, based on, in part:

314 F. Supp. 1217

(3) The fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...
Such reasoning in my opinion was weak to say the least. Again, simply stated let it stay in the personal arena of the party (ies) involved. Frankly, I am tired of all this useless arguing back and forth which resolves nothing. I am finished with this thread.
 
StarSong said:
Far sadder is how few in the anti-abortion camp speak meaningfully and offer financial support to the babies and children once they've been born.
Click to expand...
Opinions are like 'belly buttons' everyone has one! Your comments above are only opinion...no legitimate facts!
 
ElCastor said:
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. If that meaning results in an undesirable outcome, then by all means amend the Constitution. If the legislators of Texas pass a law that the people of Texas consider to be abhorrent, then the voters of Texas should deal with those legislators. Is that process what this hysteria is all about, or is it something else entirely?
Click to expand...
Are you arguing if some states want slavery that is their decision, not a federal decision? If that is the case what unites us? What are we defending around the world if not individual rights that can not be taken away by any level of government?

Roe Versus Wade is about the fourth and fifth amendments. I think our forefathers were very concerned about individual rights. Liberty is about individual rights but it must go with education for good moral judgment and that does not mean religion! Thomas Jefferson understood that but I don't think it is well known today.

Becoming a parent is kind of like slavery. If we want women to bear children we need laws that protect them and the children. That also does not seem well understood but insisting women bear children without having protections in place is putting the wagon in front of the horse. That does not work well. Failure to protect the parent and child becomes a huge social problem full of injustices of suffering. Nothing is more important to human life than a physically fit body and mind and good parenting.
 
Lewkat said:
Such reasoning in my opinion was weak to say the least. Again, simply stated let it stay in the personal arena of the party (ies) involved. Frankly, I am tired of all this useless arguing back and forth which resolves nothing. I am finished with this thread.
Click to expand...
But you made a very good and useful argument.
 
It sets a bad precedent legally. If when every time there is a change in administration the supreme court goes and reopens cases that have already been adjuducated. The court should let the decision previously made stand and leave it alone. It's unhealthy for the country, for us as Americans, and how we define ourselves to be continually going through this. That was not the intended function of the supreme court.
 
Vida May said:
What is a legitimate fact to you? What is required of a parent? What must a parent have to fulfill the duty of parenting?
Click to expand...
This comment she made, and I quote,
"...few in the anti-abortion camp speak meaningfully and offer financial support to the babies and children once they've been born."

Can either be supported by facts by the person who said it, or it us just an opinion!

Your question has no bearing on my initial comment....
 
chic said:
It sets a bad precedent legally. If when every time there is a change in administration the supreme court goes and reopens cases that have already been adjuducated. The court should let the decision previously made stand and leave it alone. It's unhealthy for the country, for us as Americans, and how we define ourselves to be continually going through this. That was not the intended function of the supreme court.
Click to expand...
Hardly a precedent - the Supreme Court has overturned prior rulings over 200 times.

Overturned
 
Vida May said:
Are you arguing if some states want slavery that is their decision, not a federal decision? If that is the case what unites us? What are we defending around the world if not individual rights that can not be taken away by any level of government?
Click to expand...
Of course not! The 13th Amendment specifically prohibits slavery. States may pass whatever law they wish, but if that law is appealed to the Supreme Court and found to be unconstitutional it will be voided by the Court.
Vida May said:
Roe Versus Wade is about the fourth and fifth amendments. I think our forefathers were very concerned about individual rights. Liberty is about individual rights but it must go with education for good moral judgment and that does not mean religion! Thomas Jefferson understood that but I don't think it is well known today.
Becoming a parent is kind of like slavery. If we want women to bear children we need laws that protect them and the children. That also does not seem well understood but insisting women bear children without having protections in place is putting the wagon in front of the horse. That does not work well. Failure to protect the parent and child becomes a huge social problem full of injustices of suffering. Nothing is more important to human life than a physically fit body and mind and good parenting.
Click to expand...
Let's be clear on this. The Constitution does not consist of, nor is it bound by, that which you or I believe to be right. It is what it is, and it is the duty of the judges of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of every one of its words. If you or I don't like those words, the Constitution can be altered -- which it has been twenty-seven times.

Be that as it may, Roe v Wade is an opinion which you and I support. "IF" the current Court decides that the previous decision of the Court was wrong (which at this point it has not done), then a 28th amendment may be necessary and very useful.
 
Lewkat said:
Frankly, I am tired of all this useless arguing back and forth which resolves nothing. I am finished with this thread.
Click to expand...
I have found this thread to be useful in gaining an understanding of the diversity of opinions and the depth of the divisions. And most of the exchanges have been civil and honest expressions of what people are thinking.

That said it does seem to me that it's all been said, several different ways. I may like or dislike what others have said, but at this point I can't think of anything new to add. So maybe I am finished too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top