Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

JaniceM said:
It could depend on how far individuals with this viewpoint can go:
https://www.liveaction.org/news/life-mother-exceptions-abortion-unnecessary/
a lot of squirrely ideas out there- and unfortunately some individuals get into positions of power/influence.
Click to expand...
While the CDC has guidelines regarding specific treatment protocols, guidelines that change when medical discovery requires it, under no circumstances are politicians allowed to interfere with a physician's efforts to save lives.

(also, see Hippocratic Oath)
 
According to Pew Research, in every non-political or non-religious category, the majority of people want abortions to be legal in most cases. It's only when politics and religion enter into the equation that you find differences of opinion where one side wants to ban abortions.

Regarding education level, college grads are twice as likely to be pro-choice than non-grads.

Our Founding Fathers where highly educated intellectuals who were relatively (for that time in history) non-religious. In fact, they fled the tyranny of the British church, which is why the Establishment Clause in our Constitution is right there in the 1st Amendment. They knew the dangers of the church influencing public policy and they wanted no part of it in their newly created government, so much so that they wanted, as Jefferson put it, a "wall between church and state."

It's too bad more people don't try to be more like our Founding Fathers. This country wouldn't be in the mess it's in right now if more people embraced education, reason, and logic rather than religious dogma and political propaganda, and for the past 20 or so years, crazy conspiracy theories. Now we can't even agree on what constitutes reality!
 
SeniorBen said:
According to Pew Research, in every non-political or non-religious category, the majority of people want abortions to be legal in most cases. It's only when politics and religion enter into the equation that you find differences of opinion where one side wants to ban abortions.

Regarding education level, college grads are twice as likely to be pro-choice than non-grads.

Our Founding Fathers where highly educated intellectuals who were relatively (for that time in history) non-religious. In fact, they fled the tyranny of the British church, which is why the Establishment Clause in our Constitution is right there in the 1st Amendment. They knew the dangers of the church influencing public policy and they wanted no part of it in their newly created government, so much so that they wanted, as Jefferson put it, a "wall between church and state."

It's too bad more people don't try to be more like our Founding Fathers. This country wouldn't be in the mess it's in right now if more people embraced education, reason, and logic rather than religious dogma and political propaganda, and for the past 20 or so years, crazy conspiracy theories. Now we can't even agree on what constitutes reality!
Click to expand...
Well, in my opinion, killing an unborn human being at any stage, unless there is a darned good reason for it, is wrong.. and that's "reality."

As for me, I'm college-educated, generally vote Democrat, and had the viewpoint I just mentioned long before I had a "religion." No "dogma," no "propaganda," just the belief that ending a life should not simply be a matter of 'choice.'
 
Murrmurr said:
At least 2 Dem presidents promised to codify Roe-v-Wade, and didn't...just never got around to it. (and i think a 3rd one did too, way earlier, but i'm not certain)

Also a hard lesson, I suppose.
Click to expand...
Even if it had been codified, it could just as easily have been repealed. But it never had a chance, anyway. Passing anything these days requires 60 votes in the Senate and it's been that way since 2009. So not only would it have required both Houses and the President to have been in favor of it, it would have required a supermajority in the Senate, which did happen 2009, but only for a few months, during which time, they were trying to pass the ACA.
 
JaniceM said:
Well, in my opinion, killing an unborn human being at any stage, unless there is a darned good reason for it, is wrong.. and that's "reality."

As for me, I'm college-educated, generally vote Democrat, and had the viewpoint I just mentioned long before I had a "religion." No "dogma," no "propaganda," just the belief that ending a life should not simply be a matter of 'choice.'
Click to expand...
I do not disagree with you but, if you don't mind, I'm interested in what reasons you believe are darned good.
 
SeniorBen said:
Even if it had been codified, it could just as easily have been repealed. But it never had a chance, anyway. Passing anything these days requires 60 votes in the Senate and it's been that way since 2009. So not only would it have required both Houses and the President to have been in favor of it, it would have required a supermajority in the Senate, which did happen 2009, but only for a few months, during which time, they were trying to pass the ACA.
Click to expand...
Yes, there was a lot of attention on the ACA. It's very common for politicians to break promises because they focused on their favorite issues.
 
JaniceM said:
Well, in my opinion, killing an unborn human being at any stage, unless there is a darned good reason for it, is wrong.. and that's "reality."

As for me, I'm college-educated, generally vote Democrat, and had the viewpoint I just mentioned long before I had a "religion." No "dogma," no "propaganda," just the belief that ending a life should not simply be a matter of 'choice.'
Click to expand...
That's not "reality." That's your opinion.
 
SeniorBen said:
I don't know that they ever "promised" codification but some did try.
Click to expand...
When the two I'm thinking of were campaigning, they did indeed make that promise after the question was raised (by representatives of a women's group, not journalists).

Do you know if the proposal was ever brought before congress?

(actually, I'll look it up)
 
Nathan said:
Now, maybe the debate will be more focused on men stepping up and being responsible as well.
Click to expand...
Gender is fluid. So we are told.
SeniorBen said:
According to Pew Research, in every non-political or non-religious category, the majority of people want abortions to be legal in most cases. It's only when politics and religion enter into the equation that you find differences of opinion where one side wants to ban abortions.

Regarding education level, college grads are twice as likely to be pro-choice than non-grads.

Our Founding Fathers where highly educated intellectuals who were relatively (for that time in history) non-religious. In fact, they fled the tyranny of the British church, which is why the Establishment Clause in our Constitution is right there in the 1st Amendment. They knew the dangers of the church influencing public policy and they wanted no part of it in their newly created government, so much so that they wanted, as Jefferson put it, a "wall between church and state."

It's too bad more people don't try to be more like our Founding Fathers. This country wouldn't be in the mess it's in right now if more people embraced education, reason, and logic rather than religious dogma and political propaganda, and for the past 20 or so years, crazy conspiracy theories. Now we can't even agree on what constitutes reality!
Click to expand...
With all due respect I think you are projecting the well publicized behavior of maybe 10% of those who belong to a church onto the entire group. I know a lot of regular church goers who believe in some level of legal abortion for example. And most do NOT want their church to get involved in politics other than perhaps a simple reminder to vote on election day.

Have you ever heard of Liberation Theology? If not, look it up. It is not what the so-called right wing churches would endorse. Yet, both are christian.
 
StarSong said:
I'm not sure that's true, Frank.
Click to expand...
Where is there a state law that prohibits a physician from terminating a pregnancy that threatens his or her patient's life? I don't know of any law that forces a physician to force a patient to risk death caused by a pregnancy, or even a law that forces a physician to force a woman to carry a fetus to term that will surely die before or soon after birth, such as one that has untreatable life-threatening deformities.

Have you seen the movie, Steel Magnolias? Julia Roberts (I think) played a lady with severe diabetes who's doctor advised her to never have children because a pregnancy could kill her. When she got pregnant anyway, the doctor advised her to let him(or her) terminate it. In case you haven't seen it, I won't spoil the ending. 😇
 
Murrmurr said:
Yes, you're right. And when it didn't happen in his 1st term, it was promised again in his 2nd.

I think if he'd found a way to include it in his Nat'l Healthcare or One-Payer plan, or whatever, then codifying Roe would've basically been automatic. Do you know if I'm wrong about that? (not that it matters at this point)
Click to expand...

No. You’re right, it could have been included or as a stand alone bill.
 
Murrmurr said:
When the two I'm thinking of were campaigning, they did indeed make that promise after the question was raised (by representatives of a women's group, not journalists).

Do you know if the proposal was ever brought before congress?

(actually, I'll look it up)
Click to expand...

A bill came up in May, but was pretty extreme going beyond Roe. 49-51 in the Senate.
 
oldman said:
Didn’t I hear on a news show that the government was considering building abortion clinics on federal land such as federal parks in states that do not allow abortions?
Click to expand...
Won’t happen. It’s federal land, non federal employees might not have legal protection.
 
JaniceM said:
Well, in my opinion, killing an unborn human being at any stage, unless there is a darned good reason for it, is wrong.. and that's "reality."

As for me, I'm college-educated, generally vote Democrat, and had the viewpoint I just mentioned long before I had a "religion." No "dogma," no "propaganda," just the belief that ending a life should not simply be a matter of 'choice.'
Click to expand...
Ah but it isn't a being yet, it is a human zygote, then a human embryo and then a human fetus. It isn't a being until it can live outside the womb.
 
I just remembered something my mother told me many years ago. My mother was given the option of having an abortion when she was having me. She had lost my twin in the 2nd month of her pregnancy and the Doctor doubted she would carry me full term. She denied doing that and I was born full-term and I weighed 7lbs 14ounces. I'm really lucky she made that choice. I believe only the pregnant woman should be allowed to make the choice.
 
Sassycakes said:
I just remembered something my mother told me many years ago. My mother was given the option of having an abortion when she was having me. She had lost my twin in the 2nd month of her pregnancy and the Doctor doubted she would carry me full term. She denied doing that and I was born full-term and I weighed 7lbs 14ounces. I'm really lucky she made that choice. I believe only the pregnant woman should be allowed to make the choice.
Click to expand...
I agree with your final sentence.
Choice means having the opportunity to consider the options without being pressured either way.
Having to decide in a hurry is just another form of pressure that could lead to a lifetime of regret.

Women contemplating abortion need support; emotional, legal and in many cases, financial.
A woman who is supported by a loving man is very unlikely to consider termination if she is confident that she will be able to give her baby the care it needs as well as a promising future.
 
They talked about executive action options on the NewsHour this evening and this is what was being considered...

Abortion on federal property
Declare a public health emergency
Expand access on military bases
Increase access to medication abortion
Medicaid funding for interstate travel

They've taken abortion on federal property off the table, as well as the military base option. The abortion pill is really the only viable option for the federal government. Women could order the medication perhaps through a website or over the phone and states would be powerless to do anything about it.

I would guess that a medically induced abortion would be a really unpleasant if not painful experience for the pregnant woman, though... especially having to do that in their bathroom when it should be done in a doctor's office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top