Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

SeniorBen said:
An anti-abortion non-profit was torched today. Or it might have been yesterday. People are starting to fight back.
Click to expand...
Yeap, just like the Sunni and Shia. Religion did not bring peace. Democracy brought peace, but we no longer know that because younger generations were not taught the history of democracy and when kings held all the power and citizens had nothing, not even the safety of their own homes. To understand our forefathers meaning in the constitution it is essential to know the history of our democracy and that is no longer an important part of education.
 

JustDave said:
Abortion is too controversial for congress to act on. That's why congress just sits back and lets the courts decide. In addition, abortion is more useful to both sides as a campaign issue. Solve the problem and you loose the issue. The current talk is just something to talk about before midterms. But maybe I'm too cynical.
Click to expand...
Please replace "a right to abortion" with "a right to privacy" and make that argument. The legal issue is a right to privacy not a moral debate about abortion. Do we want to argue our judges do not care about our privacy and the liberty to reason our own decisions? Oh yeah, that is exactly what is at risk. And to understand that is to understand the importance of education and the Greek philosophers who believed all things are a matter of reason.
 
feywon said:
The anti-abortion crowd, often also opposes contraception, and ignores the fact that Planned Parenthood helps women obtain birth control options. Also counsels them so they can make informed decisions about both contraception and unplanned pregnancies!

That sentence i made bold? When i was 13 i almost lost my Mom because step Dad insisted she abort.(keep in mind her generation, the downside of husband 'ruling' over his wife). Ironically, the illegal abortion attempt revealed an ectopic pregnancy. In those days it likely would not have been discovered until she was hemorrhaging from damage the growing fetus did to her ovary.

Luckily, the ER doctor didn't mention the attempted abortion in his report tho Mom leveled with him. He considered the ectopic nature of the pregnancy to be the cause. It destroyed that ovary as it was and he told her odds of conceiving again should she want to were low.

A little over 2 yrs later she conceived again and the father again wanted her to abort. This time she refused, at 38 she considered it a miraculous last chance to have another biological child (she raised 3 step-daughters besides me). That baby, my beloved brother, would not exist if she'd let the previous pregnancy continue. Nor would his 3 children. Yet there are anti-abortion laws that would not allow a woman to abort even for medical reasons, risks to Mother's life.
Click to expand...
"The anti-abortion crowd, often also opposes contraception, and ignores the fact that Planned Parenthood helps women obtain birth control options."
This is a key point right here Fey. And lawmakers on that side are also likely not to want to add more funds to the welfare system or make health care generally more affordable for the mothers and their babies. They are not throwing money at assistance with high day care costs or affordable housing options either!
 

SeaBreeze said:
All these people who want to trash Roe after all these decades don't give a damn about the babies once they are born. They don't care about the poor woman who may need child care, financial or medical assistance for their babies and children.
Click to expand...
Amen. They also do whatever they can to make it extraordinarily difficult for these women and (and eventually their offspring) from casting ballots.
 
Vida May said:
I am not understanding your comment and at the moment I don't think anyone here understands the Roe Verses Wade issue is privacy. What Texas has done, make it law that everyone can report a neighbor or family member, or anyone suspected of being involved in any way with an abortion. That leads to what we defended our democracy against. We are on the path to a police state that would end our liberty and I don't think that is how everyone here is understanding what is at stake.
Click to expand...
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?
 
ElCastor said:
Is that process what this hysteria is all about, or is it something else entirely?
Click to expand...
If it would be Your Body, Your Own Person being directed and under the control of others, you might be hysterical too. You seem to have no idea of the depth of being threatened on such an intimate level. Not because you are male do I say this. Ponder your inability to see the potential loss of freedom that is facing our own daughters, granddaughters, all those females you love.
 
Plus the fact that the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a venue for making laws. The justices of the SC are supposed to be there in a judicial capacity, to study and interpret whether legislation supports our rights as human beings and as Americans.... not to put in place whatever legislation is wanted by the president who appointed them.

I think the only solution to the kind of extremism we are seeing now is to have a time limit on SC terms. It is insane to allow them to serve for their entire lives, no matter how long that may be. And that goes for both sides of the spectrum. The president is restricted to two terms; why not have the same for SC justices. OK, maybe we can't do "terms," but they can have a time limit.

Just from a common sense point of view, what we have now is not working. The majority of Americans support Roe v Wade. Why should a politically appointed group who are only there because of shyster-type trickery in the first place, be able to overrule what the majority want, returning us to an archaic, dangerous, malicious system, that has caused untold suffering to women for centuries?

And I have to add, a lot of the blame for this goes to RBG. This was so predictable.
 
It would require a constitutional amendment for SC justices to have term limits, not passage of any laws.
 
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...
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. At that point the woman could have gone out of state to where it was legal to have the procedure done. By making it a public issue, we are now ridden with so much angst and hatred that it boggles the mind. Just keep these matters to a personal level as they are really no one else's business.
 
SeaBreeze said:
Why we're going back in time instead of forward is beyond me....very sad this is even happening in 2022. Unless people wake up, our country will not be recognizable. :( Glad I live in a state that for now anyway, respects individual's rights and freedoms.
Click to expand...
Giving legislative power to the states is actually a progressive action - ideally, states gov'ts are supposed to have more legislative power and the federal gov't less. However, it's extremely odd to me that they're doing it with abortion laws, especially on the heels of contentious pandemic policies. idk, it seems a bit shady to me.

Just like with gun rights, if the power to legislate abortion is given to states, federal protection should also exist, imo.

(Did they decide yet?)
 
SeniorBen said:
60% of Americans believe Roe vs. Wade should be upheld.
All five justices on the SCOTUS that want to overturn Roe vs Wade were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.

What we're dealing with here is minority rule.
Click to expand...
That happens with issues like this where a substantial minority voting block will support a candidate or party based just on a single issue.

It has been true of the abortion thing for a while now, might be changing, might not.
 
SeniorBen said:
60% of Americans believe Roe vs. Wade should be upheld.
All five justices on the SCOTUS that want to overturn Roe vs Wade were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.

What we're dealing with here is minority rule.
Click to expand...
I wish the headline hadn't used the word "overturn". They're deciding if each state can have the power to legislate their own abortion laws, and since each state's legislators are chosen by voters, it isn't minority rule.

But even if the Supreme Court decides to allow states to legislate abortion, they can still offer federal protection for women under the Bill of Rights/Women's Rights.
 
States already legislate their own abortion laws which is why Roe v. Wade is being considered for reversal. Some of these states laws are downright draconian and some to the point of outright 1st degree murder. There comes a point when a fetus is a real baby who needs protection as well.

States' Rights gives the majority of the voters to event rescind existing laws right now. Self determination could set an example by a state accepting that there will be no legislation regarding this issue whatsoever and to leave it in the personal domain of the woman.

Also, modified legislation could permit automatic permission for abortion if one is raped, impregnated through incest, her life is in danger due to pregnancy or if it appears the fetus will be irrevocably disfigured and unable to become a functioning human being.

There are many ways to protect the woman in these cases and if it is simply a personal choice, then let it be hers alone. Not a public spectacle.
 
StarSong said:
Only one person can make the final decision, and that person is the mother. Just as the mother (in California and presumably other states) has the legal right to name the child.

Reminds me of something I heard many years ago: When it comes to breakfast, the chicken is involved while the pig is committed.

When it comes to bearing a child the man is involved and the woman is committed.??
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As polarized as we are in the U.S. right now, the SCOTUS decides to exacerbate the problem by overruling something that has stood for five decades and is supported by the majority. Rarely is a right taken away in a free society in the name of religion.
 
Lewkat said:
Also, modified legislation could permit automatic permission for abortion if one is raped, impregnated through incest, her life is in danger due to pregnancy
Click to expand...
All pregnancy is dangerous, limiting a woman's choice after 6 weeks of pregnancy is taking away the woman's right to life because I seriously doubt doctors will be willing to risk saying a woman will absolutely be going to die, they (in my experience) hedge everything. So what percentage of survival do other people get to choose for women? A ten percent chance she'll die? a 50/50 chance? 90%?

And didn't Texas already prevent a woman from being given medicine after an early miscarriage? That is what killed that Irish woman, she lost her pregnancy and the health care wouldn't allow the medicine that helps the uterus clean itself out, and so she needlessly died from infection that would have been prevented. I'm pretty sure doctors and health insurers won't want to risk getting sued so they will just leave women to take the chance of dying.
 
Lewkat said:
This raises the question then, why did the Supreme Court choose to even consider Roe vs. Wade?
Click to expand...
I reckon they chose to hear the case because one of the parties claimed there was or was not a Constitutional element. That's how they get drawn into these things.
 
Pepper said:
If it would be Your Body, Your Own Person being directed and under the control of others, you might be hysterical too. You seem to have no idea of the depth of being threatened on such an intimate level. Not because you are male do I say this. Ponder your inability to see the potential loss of freedom that is facing our own daughters, granddaughters, all those females you love.
Click to expand...
In an effort to avoid the dreaded politics my remark was a reference to the forthcoming Fall election -- one whose outcome seemed certain until the Supreme Court was conveniently (and perhaps illegally) drawn into the picture. BTW, I am very familiar with the painful nature of an abortion decision. Someone very close to me was forced to make that decision by a failed IUD.
 
HoneyNut said:
All pregnancy is dangerous, limiting a woman's choice after 6 weeks of pregnancy is taking away the woman's right to life because I seriously doubt doctors will be willing to risk saying a woman will absolutely be going to die, they (in my experience) hedge everything. So what percentage of survival do other people get to choose for women? A ten percent chance she'll die? a 50/50 chance? 90%?

And didn't Texas already prevent a woman from being given medicine after an early miscarriage? That is what killed that Irish woman, she lost her pregnancy and the health care wouldn't allow the medicine that helps the uterus clean itself out, and so she needlessly died from infection that would have been prevented. I'm pretty sure doctors and health insurers won't want to risk getting sued so they will just leave women to take the chance of dying.
Click to expand...
I think she means if pregnancy is life-threatening, like with severe diabetes, certain cardiac and bone diseases, etc.
 
It could be a disaster if abortion is not protected by the federal government but instead controlled by individual states. As a teenager abortion was legal in N.Y. but not in my state. Then RVW passed and it was legal everywhere. This didn't impact my part of the country as much as it would others. Can you envision a scenario where a woman can obtain a legal abortion in one state, but risk arrest or the death penalty for traveling thirty miles to a neighboring state? Situations like this could exist in the future. Where is the stability and cohesion? Can the United States of America be united in anything if not in this?

RVW was a quantum leap forward. My body, my choice. How can we survive as a nation when something so fundamental is overturned?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top