The Overturning of Roe v Wade

[candycorn]

Given that women are more than 53% of the population at this point and 90+ percent of catholic women practice some form of contraception...it may not be a political win for Conservatives long term.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that women in general support abortion, more so than men. If so, that's a common assumption, but it is not true.

According to a 2019 Gallup poll on values and beliefs, 51% of women consider themselves to be pro-life, compared with 46% of men who identify as pro-life.

The poll reminds me of the often repeated poll that says Americans want to see more documentaries and fine arts programming on television. It sounds good when you answer the poll question...not so good when you see the reality on the ground.

I think you're projecting. Also I don't think you see why many men are for abortion. They don't want the responsibility or accountability. Many men want to be able to screw around as much as they want, use women, and of course abortion-on-demand allows them to get rid of the "mistake" instead of being responsible for their own actions like a real man.

Your position enables that behavior.

My position on a poll enables behavior?

Your position on abortion, I thought my point was clear and obvious.

My position is to support a person's right to privacy in medical decisions.

 

[Penelope]

Given that women are more than 53% of the population at this point and 90+ percent of catholic women practice some form of contraception...it may not be a political win for Conservatives long term.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that women in general support abortion, more so than men. If so, that's a common assumption, but it is not true.

According to a 2019 Gallup poll on values and beliefs, 51% of women consider themselves to be pro-life, compared with 46% of men who identify as pro-life.

The poll reminds me of the often repeated poll that says Americans want to see more documentaries and fine arts programming on television. It sounds good when you answer the poll question...not so good when you see the reality on the ground.

I think you're projecting. Also I don't think you see why many men are for abortion. They don't want the responsibility or accountability. Many men want to be able to screw around as much as they want, use women, and of course abortion-on-demand allows them to get rid of the "mistake" instead of being responsible for their own actions like a real man.

Your position enables that behavior.

and another polls says from Gallup:

Majority in U.S. Still Want Abortion Legal, With Limits

Americans' views on abortion remain steady, with most wanting abortion legal with some restrictions. More say they will only vote for like-minded candidates.

news.gallup.com

 

[JoeB131]

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

I'm going to take away your rights and force millions of women to have dangerous procedures, can we have a civil conversation on this?

Um, no.

This is exactly what the court has been avoiding for 50 years. It's why Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter and Roberts have all voted to uphold Roe. Because they know what an absolute disaster it would be if even SOME states outlawed abortion.

I've already pointed out the problems (which you've ignored) in the granting of civil rights to fetuses. That every woman who had a miscarriage would now be treated as a criminal suspect. Did you do something to cause the miscarriage? Are we going to treat tampons as crime scenes?

Law and Order: Tampon Police

Could a woman who smoked, drank a glass of wine or even ate the wrong kinds of food during a pregnancy be charged with assault?

Could women be banned from certain jobs because of potential harm to a fetus?

You've essentially given fetuses more rights than the women they are inside.

Our Nation's more than 30 State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws do exactly that.

They "ESTABLISH" the personhood of "Children in the Womb" in "Any stage of Development."

And we've already seen how these laws have been abused to go after women who had miscarriages, like Purvi Patel, who spent years in prison because she lost a pregnancy.

 

[alang1216]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

Since the Constitution doesn't define 'person' I don't think the court will rule on a definition of personhood. I'm fairly sure there was no real discussion of what constitutes a 'person' in the era of the founding fathers. They may strike down RvW but they won't replace it with something new so it will go back to the states.

I'm not well versed in this subject but my understanding is that personhood laws are aimed at prosecuting crimes against pregnant women. If they are used by states for other reasons a serious can of worms will be opened.

 

[Flash]

To me the Roe v Wade was a ridiculous ruling, like on the same level of the Dred Scott decision.

Ruling that a woman has the Constitutional right to kill her child for the sake of convenience was absolutely unbelievable.

It should be overturn.

 

[JoeB131]

To me the Roe v Wade was a ridiculous ruling, like on the same level of the Dred Scott decision.

Ruling that a woman has the Constitutional right to kill her child for the sake of convenience was absolutely unbelievable.

It should be overturn.

You see, you suffer from the misconception about Roe that America was a happy, abortion-free place before 1973.

Exactly the opposite was true. By 1973, most women who had unwanted pregnancies went to their OB/GYN and he performed the abortion and wrote something else down on the chart. Insurance happily paid for this, because they knew it was cheaper.

Pre-Roe, women were never arrested for having abortions and providers were never prosecuted for performing them unless they screwed up and injured the woman. In short, abortion laws were kind of like prostitution laws- they were on the books, but you had no problem finding one if you wanted one.

When the Seven Justices - Including FIVE Nixon and Eisenhower appointees - voted for Roe and more importantly, Doe v. Boland, which was issued on the same day, they thought it was no more controversial than when they struck down the outdated contraception laws in Griswold v. Connecticut . So what happened?

Well, the Christian Right did. Before Roe, the Evangelicals and Southern Baptists considered contraception and abortion to be a "Catholic thing" they didn't care that much about. They were more concerned with keeping the darkies out of their churches. When segregation wasn't playing too well, they needed an issue to get asses back into pews, and lo and behold, abortion became a big issue.

Up until Trump, Republicans have had the good sense to realize that it would be a disaster if Roe were overturned and this issue got back into the legislative arena. That's why more Republican Justices have voted to maintain Roe (Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Roberts) than have voted to overturn it (Scalia, Thomas, Alito). It is only because Trump is more interested in throwing red meat to his base than actually maintaining balance that we've gotten absolute fanatics on the court (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and now Barrett.)

 

[JoeMoma]

Roe is not getting overturned

This from a Mod? Really?

Mods have opinions just like the rest of us.

 

[JoeMoma]

There needs to be a drastic swing in public opinion in order for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned.

 

[Flash]

There needs to be a drastic swing in public opinion in order for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned.

Public sentiment is that abortions should be allowed for legitimate medical reasons but not the killing of children for the sake of convenience.

 

[Pilate]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

Yeah, makes sense. But that’s why the court is very selective about what cases it hears.

 

[JoeB131]

There needs to be a drastic swing in public opinion in order for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned.

Does it? The right wing has kind of shown they don't give a darn about public opinion, they are going to just try to jam as many of their policies down our throats as they can.

Public sentiment is that abortions should be allowed for legitimate medical reasons but not the killing of children for the sake of convenience.

Actually, not true at all. Most people think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and that abortions laws should either be make more permissive or left as they are.

 

[Meister]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

The issue with letting States decide is the same problem you run into with mixed race marriages, gay marriages, etc... If you're married in Maine, you're still married if you move to Montana. Outlawing medical procedures in a patch-work way is not likely to happen because the reasoning would have to be uniform in all of the states where it is outlawed. I can see blue states sabotaging the red states to a degree on this.

Please Explain How. . . If and when the Supreme Court were to decide that a "child in the womb" in "any stage of development" is a "person". . . That one State could (Constitutionally) embrace that decision and another could Constitutionally DENY it.

That is my point...its either an all or nothing proposition. Either abortion will be legal everywhere or illegal everywhere.

If it is made illegal everywhere, you may well have a situation that Johnson faced in civil rights where a landmark piece of legislation transforms the electorate. Given that women are more than 53% of the population at this point and 90+ percent of catholic women practice some form of contraception...it may not be a political win for Conservatives long term.

If the court would overturn RvW, that would kick it back to having the states deal with it being legal or illegal.

 

[Chuz Life]

If the court would overturn RvW, that would kick it back to having the states deal with it being legal or illegal.

Oh my gawd.

Here we are full circle again.

Did you not even read the OP Or any of the early posts before this thread was trolled and derailed?

 

[Faun]

For Reference; This is from the text of Roe v Wade itself (also in my signature)

The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Our Nation's more than 30 State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws do exactly that.

They "ESTABLISH" the personhood of "Children in the Womb" in "Any stage of Development."

So much so, that the Fetal Homicide Laws, so far, have to make EXCEPTIONS to themselves to prevent them from being used to prosecute elective abortions.

Remove those exceptions and what will we have left, but an outright ban on abortions.

Nothing in the 14th Amendment defines unborn as persons.

 

[Chuz Life]

For Reference; This is from the text of Roe v Wade itself (also in my signature)

The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Our Nation's more than 30 State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws do exactly that.

They "ESTABLISH" the personhood of "Children in the Womb" in "Any stage of Development."

So much so, that the Fetal Homicide Laws, so far, have to make EXCEPTIONS to themselves to prevent them from being used to prosecute elective abortions.

Remove those exceptions and what will we have left, but an outright ban on abortions.

Nothing in the 14th Amendment defines unborn as persons.

That's true and I'll take your point a step further and admit that when the 14th was written, there was NO intention of including "children in the womb."

Guess what happened since then to bolster the anticipations of former Supreme Court Justices like Potter Stewart.



Here's a hint: State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women

 

[Chuz Life]

There needs to be a drastic swing in public opinion in order for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned.

Can I get you to expound on that?

All it takes for Roe to be overturned is for the majority of the Supreme Court to rule on a case to make it so.

Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court should favor popular opinions over scientific facts and the Constitution?

 

[Chuz Life]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

Yeah, makes sense. But that’s why the court is very selective about what cases it hears.

To your point, could you imagine being a person convicted under a fetal homicide law, for something like drinking and driving and accidentally killing a "child in the womb?"

In a world where abortion is (for now) "legal" and the laws both DENY personhood to children in the womb (abortion laws) and establish it at the same time (fetal homicide laws). . . You can safely bet that I would be appealing my case all the way up to the Supreme Court.

 

[Coyote]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

I think to some degree you are correct. Anti-abortion extremists are hardly likely to let it be decided by states. They seeking their own sweeping federal ruling akin to RvW.

It will be hell for women and their rights during pregnancy, turning pregnancy into a potential legal nightmare and increasing federal involvement into woman’s most intimate decisions. It could also have broad implications for the most effective forms of birth control.

But it might ultimately prove to be an overreach.

 

[Faun]

For Reference; This is from the text of Roe v Wade itself (also in my signature)

The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Our Nation's more than 30 State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws do exactly that.

They "ESTABLISH" the personhood of "Children in the Womb" in "Any stage of Development."

So much so, that the Fetal Homicide Laws, so far, have to make EXCEPTIONS to themselves to prevent them from being used to prosecute elective abortions.

Remove those exceptions and what will we have left, but an outright ban on abortions.

Nothing in the 14th Amendment defines unborn as persons.

That's true and I'll take your point a step further and admit that when the 14th was written, there was NO intention of including "children in the womb."

Guess what happened since then to bolster the anticipations of former Supreme Court Justices like Potter Stewart.



Here's a hint: State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women

Great, well since there's nothing in the Constitution to establish unborn are persons, the option on the table for the Supreme Court is to rule infant homicide laws are unconstitutional.

 

[Chuz Life]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

I think to some degree you are correct. Anti-abortion extremists are hardly likely to let be decided by states. They seeking their own sweeping federal ruling akin to RvW.

It will be hell for women and their rights during pregnancy, turning pregnancy into a potential legal nightmare and increasing federal involvement into woman’s most I time t decisions. It could also have broad implications for the most effective forms of birth control.

But it might ultimately prove to be an overreach.

Can we agree or can we not agree that the common ground should be "when does a child's life and rights begin?"

If that is not to be the common ground then all other efforts and conversations on the sucbject are futile.

Agree?