Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Stuphie, you are free to turn your body over to the government. The rest of us have no desire to do so.
What would the government do with her body, anyway...
Besides, she'd only want to turn it over when Republicans are running things.
When Democrats are running things, she'll go nuts that they want to limit the carcinogens in her food.
Well Joe, so you are for prostitution, incest, polygammy, legalizing any drug, in fact getting rid of prescription drugs and making everything over the counter?
All this so you can kill a kid and have your birth control paid for, nice!!!!!!
What If Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?
For some it's a dream scenario, for others a nightmare: A conservative president and conservative Senate are in power. Two or three key justices retire and are easily replaced by justices of the Scalia-Thomas mold. A routine abortion rights case makes its way to our nation's highest court...and in a 5-4 majority ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia writes words never before handed down by the Supreme Court: "We find in the Constitution no implicit right to privacy."
Unlikely? Very. But in the final analysis, this is what we're fighting over. Conservative presidential candidates say that they will work to appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Other candidates say that they will not. Nobody in any real position of political power is talking about a federal constitutional amendment banning abortion, or anything of that nature, anymore. It's all about Roe.
The Political Reality
1. Within the first 60 days, trigger bans take effect. Numerous states have abortion bans already on the books that could take effect automatically within 45 to 60 days, based only on the attorney general's finding that Roe v. Wade has been overturned. All of these states would immediately close down any and all abortion clinics.
2. Within the first two years, abortion is illegal in more than half of the country. Legislatures in socially conservative states that have not already banned abortion would do so. After banning abortion, these states would aim to write abortion bans into their constitutions by referendum in an effort by legislators to draw socially conservative voters to the polls. In socially conservative states, from South Carolina in the east to Kansas in the west, abortion would be easily banned. In socially progressive states, such as California and most of New England, it would remain legal. Closely divided states, such as North Carolina and Ohio, would be political battlegrounds as the question of whether or not to ban abortion would become the defining issue of the legislative year--every legislative year.
3. For generations to come, abortion remains a defining issue in American politics. In federal policy debate, progressive legislators would work every year to expand abortion rights while conservative legislators would work every year to restrict them. Progressive politicians would run for president vowing to appoint justices who would bring back Roe, while conservative politicians would run for president vowing to appoint justices who wouldn't.
The Reality for Women
1. In states that protect abortion rights, little changes. A post-Roe New York is going to look pretty much just like a pre-Roe New York.
2. In states that ban abortion, abortion will move from the clinic to the bedroom. In most Latin American countries, abortion is illegal with a prison sentence of up to 30 years for women who have abortions--but there are still about four times as many abortions in Latin America as there are in the United States. Why? Because women who can't have abortions at clinics are still perfectly capable of shelling out two dollars for a black market abortifacient. And there are many, many abortifacients--ranging from common herbs to mass-produced anti-ulcer drugs. The police can't keep marijuana off the streets; they would have even less success with abortifacients. Bedroom abortions are much less safe than clinic abortions--approximately 80,000 women die every year from do-it-yourself abortions--but it's not as if having an abortion is anybody's idea of a good time to begin with, and many women will still be having abortions regardless of the legal or physical risks. This is why many people who do not personally approve of abortion still strongly identify as pro-choice.
3. Many women will get angry...and vote accordingly. In 2004, NOW organized the March for Women's Lives in Washington, DC. With 1.2 million participants, it was the largest DC mobilization in U.S. history--larger than the March on Washington, larger than the Million Man March. And this is while abortion is legal. The Religious Right as we know it today exists because abortion was made legal, and it has delivered the presidency to Republicans for five of the last seven presidential elections. Want to take a guess at how the national political landscape would change if Roe were overturned? Yeah. Neither do conservative politicians, which is why--despite winning the aforementioned presidencies--Republican administrations have done nothing concrete to ban abortion. Even though conservative Republican presidents have appointed seven of our nine current Supreme Court justices, only two of these justices have expressed an interest in overturning Roe v. Wade.
in reality ....women should belong to neither party as they are both male dominated....i would love to see the emergence of a 3rd party dominated by women
Then we could take over the world and keep men as pets to be used when needed for sex or taking out the trash.
keep men as pets? o hell no....i take good care of my pets lol.....
but seriously here is what i dont get...we control the money...while not take the rest...men are so on the way out.....look at them...angry white men...just all pissed off over being white...they are so cute but quickly becoming passe'
in reality ....women should belong to neither party as they are both male dominated....i would love to see the emergence of a 3rd party dominated by women
But who'd want a party where the biggest decision would be what to wear?
(Ducks for cover!)
Just kidding! Just kidding!
Valerie, I'm not seeing how you can have a sensible view on Abortion like this and then still support Romney, who thinks most abortions should be banned and has promised to appoint anti-Choice justices...
Unless you think he really doesn't mean it.
Stuphie, you are free to turn your body over to the government. The rest of us have no desire to do so.
What would the government do with her body, anyway...
Besides, she'd only want to turn it over when Republicans are running things.
When Democrats are running things, she'll go nuts that they want to limit the carcinogens in her food.
Valerie, I'm not seeing how you can have a sensible view on Abortion like this and then still support Romney, who thinks most abortions should be banned and has promised to appoint anti-Choice justices...
Unless you think he really doesn't mean it.
The writer of this piece takes an anti-Romney tack but it has a lot of good info... I've taken the time to highlight some of it here but there are many quotes and links that I don't have time to go through right now...
The real story of Romney’s conversion—a series of tentative, equivocal, and confused shifts, accompanied by a constant rewriting of his past—paints a more accurate picture of who he is. Romney has complex views and a talent for framing them either way, depending on his audience. He values truth, so he makes sure there’s an element of it in everything he says. He can’t stand to break his promises, so he reinterprets them.
...
Romney began to think about running against Sen. Ted Kennedy. Romney approached the idea as he had always approached things: with a businessman’s prudence. He hired Republican pollster Dick Wirthlin to survey the Massachusetts electorate and identify challenges Romney might face. Scott, a friend of the Romney family, reports in his book that Wirthlin came back with tough news: No pro-life candidate could win statewide office in Massachusetts.
Until this moment, Romney hadn’t taken a public position on abortion. He had pro-life experience as a Mormon leader and counselor. He had pro-choice experience as the relative of a woman who had died from illegal abortion. In general, he respected women, and he didn’t like government telling people what to do.
Within the Romney family, his mother had preached the separation of religious practice from public policy.
Mormons, having suffered persecution at the hands of other Christians, feared the injection of sectarian faith into politics.
The LDS church also had a doctrine of free agency that distinguished the rightness of choices, such as whether to drink alcohol, from the freedom to make those choices.
Above all, abortion wasn’t Romney’s issue. He was a CEO interested in management and finance. His comments throughout the 1994 campaign reflected ignorance about RU486, morning-after pills, and parental consent laws, which in those days were major topics in the abortion debate. Romney was smart enough to learn about these issues if he had wanted to. He just didn’t care that much.
Romney could have framed his complex feelings about abortion either way. Wirthlin’s poll said that if he ran as a pro-lifer, he’d lose. It would be simplistic to say that the poll dictated Romney’s decision. But we know that he used the poll to influence the most important pro-life organization he had to appease at the time: the elders of the LDS
...
If he didn’t frame his position as pro-choice, he’d lose. Many of the church leaders were unhappy with Romney’s formulation. But if they wanted him in the Senate, this was the best they were going to get.
Scott was present when Romney talked about the meetings after he returned to Boston. Judy Dushku, a Mormon feminist, says she heard a similar account from Romney in 1994:
I went to his office and I congratulated him on taking a pro-choice position. And his response was—Well they told me in Salt Lake City I could take this position, and in fact I probably had to in order to win in a liberal state like Massachusetts. …
I said, Mitt, it doesn’t make me happy to hear that. What you’re suggesting is that you’re not genuinely pro-choice. It’s a position of convenience. He said—Oh no, I actually had an aunt who died of a botched abortion. So I have some positive feelings about choice, but basically I know that I have to take that position.
If you don’t think Romney would say such a calculated thing, look at this video. It shows Romney on The O’Reilly Factor on Dec. 19, 2011, explaining how he came to his pro-choice position.
He tells Bill O’Reilly: “I thought, ‘Well, I can say and can understand the idea of leaving the law the way it is. The Supreme Court has made its decision. I'm just going to say I will support the law and preserve the law as it exists.’ ”
Notice the language: I can say … I’m just going to say. This isn’t a man talking about what he believes. It’s a man talking about framing a public posture under constraint.
...
Mitt Romney’s abortion record: flip-flop or conversion? - Slate Magazine
keep men as pets? o hell no....i take good care of my pets lol.....
but seriously here is what i dont get...we control the money...while not take the rest...men are so on the way out.....look at them...angry white men...just all pissed off over being white...they are so cute but quickly becoming passe'
That would be the only way to overturn Roe.Valerie, I'm not seeing how you can have a sensible view on Abortion like this and then still support Romney, who thinks most abortions should be banned and has promised to appoint anti-Choice justices...
Unless you think he really doesn't mean it.
When people talk about Mitt flip-flopping it's mostly about him talking out of both side of his mouth on this issue over the years, so yeah I was hoping...
I have not seen any statement by Mitt that he "promised to appoint anti-Choice judges" and Mitt has always articulated support for certain exceptions and insisted this issue was never his real agenda, but now his own website says he believes overturning Roe v Wade would be the proper course, so hope seems to be fading fast...
That would be the only way to overturn Roe.Valerie, I'm not seeing how you can have a sensible view on Abortion like this and then still support Romney, who thinks most abortions should be banned and has promised to appoint anti-Choice justices...
Unless you think he really doesn't mean it.
When people talk about Mitt flip-flopping it's mostly about him talking out of both side of his mouth on this issue over the years, so yeah I was hoping...
I have not seen any statement by Mitt that he "promised to appoint anti-Choice judges" and Mitt has always articulated support for certain exceptions and insisted this issue was never his real agenda, but now his own website says he believes overturning Roe v Wade would be the proper course, so hope seems to be fading fast...
There are three ways Roe v. Wade, (1973) can be overturned:
Since Roe vs. Wade was a Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court can effectively overturn the decision by ruling against abortion in a future case.
Congress can pass legislation protecting the fetus from the moment of conception (There are usually several bills addressing this issue in committee during each Congressional term. The 111th Congress (current) includes three House Resolutions and one Senate bill.).
Congress and the states can amend the Constitution to include the definition of "person" to include the unborn (this is the least likely scenario).
How can Roe v. Wade be reversed
in reality ....women should belong to neither party as they are both male dominated....i would love to see the emergence of a 3rd party dominated by women
Then we could take over the world and keep men as pets to be used when needed for sex or taking out the trash.
in reality ....women should belong to neither party as they are both male dominated....i would love to see the emergence of a 3rd party dominated by women
Then we could take over the world and keep men as pets to be used when needed for sex or taking out the trash.
I for one is ready to sit back with a beer and watch you guys run things. You could not do a worse job than men.
That would be the only way to overturn Roe.When people talk about Mitt flip-flopping it's mostly about him talking out of both side of his mouth on this issue over the years, so yeah I was hoping...
I have not seen any statement by Mitt that he "promised to appoint anti-Choice judges" and Mitt has always articulated support for certain exceptions and insisted this issue was never his real agenda, but now his own website says he believes overturning Roe v Wade would be the proper course, so hope seems to be fading fast...
Maybe this is just his backhanded way of finally saying he does not support the personhood amendment...
There are three ways Roe v. Wade, (1973) can be overturned:
Since Roe vs. Wade was a Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court can effectively overturn the decision by ruling against abortion in a future case.
Congress can pass legislation protecting the fetus from the moment of conception (There are usually several bills addressing this issue in committee during each Congressional term. The 111th Congress (current) includes three House Resolutions and one Senate bill.).
Congress and the states can amend the Constitution to include the definition of "person" to include the unborn (this is the least likely scenario).
How can Roe v. Wade be reversed
I have to laugh at the liberal women in this thread
YOU all had a chance to have a WOMAN run things and be the FIRST woman PRESIDENT..
but what did you do? throw her under a bus FOR A MAN and one with no experience in ANYTHING but he did have a pretty slogan, hopey changey
I now go laugh
in reality ....women should belong to neither party as they are both male dominated....i would love to see the emergence of a 3rd party dominated by women
