What if Roe Vs. Wade was Overturned?

[Gem]

I thought this was a fantastic commentary on this subject. Larry Elder has done what so few in the Pro-Choice community are willing to do...actually examine (without dramatics, hysteria, or rhetoric) what would REALLY happen if Roe Vs. Wade was overturned.

After Roe v. Wade, then what?
Larry Elder


If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, what happens?

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., seemed clueless on the issue. "Meet the Press's" Tim Russert flummoxed the senator when Russert asked, "What would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned?" McCain's response? "I don't know. I don't know what would happen because I don't think it's going to be."

Russert asked, "You don't?"

McCain replied, "No, I don't think it is, at least not any time soon given the tenor of politics in America and the courts in America."

McCain "doesn't know"?

Almost two months following McCain's "Meet the Press" appearance, Russert discussed the Roberts nomination with former Gov. Mario Cuomo, D-N.Y., among others. On the issue of abortion, Russert quoted Justice Antonin Scalia. Russert said, "[Scalia's quote] may surprise some people. . . . 'If a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would and could in good conscience vote against an attempt to invalidate that law. . . . I have religious views on the subject, but they have nothing whatever to do with my job.'" Note Russert's assertion that this "may surprise some people."

This "surprises some people" because leftists in academia, mainstream media and Hollywood confuse people on the issue. Roe did not legalize abortion. Rather, the Court discovered a "right to privacy" -- nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.

Consider a recent article in The Los Angeles Times. On the issue of the nomination of John Roberts to become a Supreme Court justice, the Times reporter wrote: "The president of the National Organization for Women [NOW], Kim Gandy, warned that of the high court candidates considered by Bush, Roberts was one of the most extreme when it came to the question of overturning the Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion [emphasis added]." Legalized abortion?

Our Founding Fathers restricted the duties, powers and obligations of the federal government, leaving the remainder to the people and to the states themselves. This includes abortion.

In 1971, nearly two years before Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on United States v. Vuitch, their first case involving abortion. It upheld a District of Columbia law permitting abortion only to preserve a woman's life or "health." The Court, however, generously defined "health" to include "psychological and physical well-being." This effectively allowed abortion for virtually any reason.

In 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, 13 states -- including Colorado, California, Oregon and North Carolina -- allowed abortion for reasons including the mother's mental or physical health, rape and incest, and fetal deformity. New York allowed abortion on demand up to the 24th week of pregnancy, with similar laws in Alaska, Hawaii and Washington. Mississippi allowed abortion for rape and incest, while Alabama allowed abortion for the mother's physical health. Thirty-one states allowed abortion only to save the mother's life.

Again, in a post Roe v. Wade world, what happens?

USA Today conducted a state-by-state analysis. Their analysis expects 11 "conservative states" to immediately pass laws prohibiting abortion. But those "conservative states" only had 122 abortion providers in 2000, less than 7 percent of the nation's 1,819 abortion providers. "Most of those 122 providers (65) are in Texas," writes USA Today. "If pro-choice forces can hold on to Texas (not unlikely, given the feisty Democratic minority's tendency to flee to Oklahoma to deny the Legislature a quorum when its members are miffed) we're down to 57 providers. If the Democrats controlling the Alabama and Arkansas legislatures decided to act like Democrats, not Dixiecrats, that total could fall to 36."

That leaves eight "conservative states" with only 36 abortion providers between them -- an already difficult proposition for any woman seeking an abortion in those states. In six of them -- Mississippi, Kentucky, the Dakotas, Missouri and Nebraska -- a woman cannot find an abortion provider in 97-98 percent of those states' counties. In other words, as it stands now, conservative states reduce abortion to almost non-existence, so a post-Roe world, at least in those states, changes little.

Despite NOW's intense support of Roe v. Wade, regular Americans appear wary of Roe and its scope. Yes, according to a recent CBS poll, 59 percent of Americans call Roe a "good thing." But when pressed more specifically, people give answers that change the picture dramatically. Only 25 percent want abortion on demand -- effectively the Roe position. Fourteen percent want abortion permitted with more restrictions; 38 percent want abortions permitted in rape, incest and to save women's lives; 15 percent want abortion permitted only to save women's lives; and 3 percent want abortion not permitted at all. When added together, 70 percent want greater, not fewer, restrictions on abortion. What about the alleged extremist, right-wing, Christian-driven, out-of-the-mainstream demand for parental notification of abortion for females under 18? The number of Americans supporting parental notification -- 80 percent.

With a reversal of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court says this: Where the Constitution fails to provide a specific empowerment for the federal government -- butt out.

Now that may surprise some people.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20050818.shtml

 

[hylandrdet]

I thought this was a fantastic commentary on this subject. Larry Elder has done what so few in the Pro-Choice community are willing to do...actually examine (without dramatics, hysteria, or rhetoric) what would REALLY happen if Roe Vs. Wade was overturned.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20050818.shtml

Gem, I support legal abortions because without it, you'll see the garbage bins pilling up with dead babies, more need for prisons because we'll start arresting the people who conduct abortions, and dead women as the result of infections and or bleeding as the result of botched operations.

Sometimes people needs to understand that our society, in certain situations, has to "cut off its nose in order to save its face". History had already told us that with the attempted prohibition of alcohol. Abortion lies within that catagory; I don't care to stop it, but it has to be contained.

 

[dilloduck]

Gem, I support legal abortions because without it, you'll see the garbage bins pilling up with dead babies, more need for prisons because we'll start arresting the people who conduct abortions, and dead women as the result of infections and or bleeding as the result of botched operations.

Sometimes people needs to understand that our society, in certain situations, has to "cut off its nose in order to save its face". History had already told us that with the attempted prohibition of alcohol. Abortion lies within that catagory; I don't care to stop it, but it has to be contained.

Ridiculous analogy----kill babies to protect ourselves??

 

[Abbey Normal]

I think it says a lot that pro-abortion folks get upset and angry when they see protestors carrying pictures of aborted babies. Why try to hide from others the truth of the procedure that they so strongly defend?

It is hypocritical to defend something that you can't even face.

I also recall reading an article about how pro-abortion folks argue about statistics showing the emotional turmoil and regret that many women who abort face for their entire lives. Always trying to sweep the truth under the rug.

 

[Nuc]

I'm sorry. Maybe I'm totally ignorant. But what is the validity of "states rights" in the modern era? Maybe when this country started there were differences between the states. But now there are none. Mississippi has Walmart, Office Depot and MacDonalds. So does Alaska. And every state in between. There is very little regional culture in America and absolutely no "State" culture, excepting cheese in Wisconsin and lobster in Maine. What is the BFD about "states rights"? Isn't this a ridiculous anachronism?

:wank: :wank: :wank:

 

[Annie]

I'm sorry. Maybe I'm totally ignorant. But what is the validity of "states rights" in the modern era? Maybe when this country started there were differences between the states. But now there are none. Mississippi has Walmart, Office Depot and MacDonalds. So does Alaska. And every state in between. There is very little regional culture in America and absolutely no "State" culture, excepting cheese in Wisconsin and lobster in Maine. What if the BFD about "states rights"? Isn't this a ridiculous anachronism?

Sorry, but the whole purpose of the Revolution was to keep the 'central government' away from issues that were better dealt with by the people of each area, colony if you will. That part hasn't changed. Education, community standards/mores are still local. All politics are local. The 'fed' should be dealing with 'broad based' issues: Money, borders, terrorism, space program, etc.

 

[Nuc]

Sorry, but the whole purpose of the Revolution was to keep the 'central government' away from issues that were better dealt with by the people of each area, colony if you will. That part hasn't changed. Education, community standards/mores are still local. All politics are local. The 'fed' should be dealing with 'broad based' issues: Money, borders, terrorism, space program, etc.

OK, I understand that, but is it not true that states no longer have monocultures? EVERY state, even Alabama and Mississippi, have broad based constituencies. Do you think that people should move from state to state just to ensure that they are in a state with a slight majority that agrees with their point of view? Or to go in the opposite direction, shouldn't every neighborhood or block or apartment building be able to make their own laws? What is sacrosanct about the "state" that is not totally arbitrary? No one who lives in any of our 50 states was born there when the constitution was forged. It's an accident of nature. Why should people be forced to accept the views of their immediate neighbors?

 

[hylandrdet]

Ridiculous analogy----kill babies to protect ourselves??

Hey, dill-hole; I'm saying that illegalizing abortion operations won't stop abortions procedures from happening.

Abortion is an evidable sin when it comes to certain people; we, as americans, have a choice as to how to deal with it; we'll either chose to use a percision instrument or a clotheshanger?

Whatever helps you sleep at night, bub!

All I can do is use the instrument that I trust; the word of GOD. Say my peace, then pray; I won't force morality on anyone. Last I recalled, I never lost a child to abortion, while consulting women of their choices.

The legal side of me says that as long as abortion is legal, women have a right to do it; my moral side fights to establish programs for women seeking alternative steps.

So when you think about it, abortion is your problem, not mine!

 

[dilloduck]

OK, I understand that, but is it not true that states no longer have monocultures? EVERY state, even Alabama and Mississippi, have broad based constituencies. Do you think that people should move from state to state just to ensure that they are in a state with a slight majority that agrees with their point of view? Or to go in the opposite direction, shouldn't every neighborhood or block or apartment building be able to make their own laws? What is sacrosanct about the "state" that is not totally arbitrary? No one who lives in any of our 50 states was born there when the constitution was forged. It's an accident of nature. Why should people be forced to accept the views of their immediate neighbors?

Damn nuke---why should anyone have to do anything? I mean like it's a free country man!

 

[Nuc]

Damn nuke---why should anyone have to do anything? I mean like it's a free country man!

Glib, yet totally vacant. Have a serious response?

 

[dilloduck]

Glib, yet totally vacant. Have a serious response?

Which question do you want an anwser to that hasn't already been answered?

 

[Gem]

Hydra,

Did you read the article or simply see that it was about overturning Roe Vs. Wade and quickly click to put your two cents in?

The reason I am asking is because if you HAD read the article...you would have seen that the author's point was that if Roe Vs. Wade WAS overturned, the availability of abortions would remain just about the same.

The only difference would be that "the people" would be the ones deciding these important matters, rather than a handful of lawyers in black robes.

I understand your feelings on the matter...however your point simply proved the author's main point...that so many people are so wrapped up in being Pro-Choice...that they haven't examined what overturning Roe Vs. Wade would really mean...or wouldn't mean. And what it WOULD'NT mean, is the abolition of abortion.


Nucular, I understand your point...however the Founding Fathers were wise enough to envision Federal Government run wild (take a look...we're pretty much there), and the individual rule of the States was their solution to that.

 

[Nuc]

Which question do you want an anwser to that hasn't already been answered?

Simply, what is the validity of state by state law rather than a blanket federal law when we can assume that a wide variety of people with different points of view exist in every state? Or if you disagree with this:

"we can assume that a wide variety of people with different points of view exist in every state"

tell me why.

 

[Bonnie]

Getting Wise to the Lies
Why Young Women are Choosing Life

August 18, 2005

The numbers have abortion advocates running scared.

Twelve years ago, 49 percent of all women between age 18 and 29 thought unrestricted abortion should be the law of the land. Today, just 28 percent of young women hold this view.

Those who promote—and profit from—abortion are trying to figure out what’s going on. Alexander Sanger, chairman of International Planned Parenthood, complains that the numbers are “unbelievably shocking.” And he warns: “It’s not just the numbers that are down . . . It’s the enthusiasm.” When Sanger visits colleges, he finds that many no longer have an abortion rights group. But, as he told Glamour magazine, he “has yet to visit one that doesn’t have a strong, vocal faction of pro-life women.”

Abortion advocates are astonished because, after all, these are the very women who are supposed to want abortion rights the most. A story in Glamour magazine, titled “The mysterious disappearance of young pro-choice women,” came up with several possible answers. Among them are three reasons. First, young women now take abortion rights for granted. Second, they think good birth control will make abortion obsolete. And third, they’ve seen ultrasound pictures of unborn babies.

Glamour gets it partly right. But the magazine neglects the most important reasons. First, since pro-choice women aborted their daughters, those daughters didn’t grow up to advocate for abortion rights. Meanwhile, pro-life women have taught their daughters why it’s wrong to kill unborn children.

Second, today’s college kids know that some of their sisters and brothers are missing because their mothers had abortions—and they know that, under different circumstances, they themselves might have been aborted.

Third, women who abort are breaking through the media blackout to tell their stories—telling younger women how their bodies were damaged by so-called safe, legal abortions—describing how their abortions led to infertility, and to emotional pain that won’t go away. They’re talking about the proven link between abortion and breast cancer, about the higher suicide rate among women who abort, and about women who are killed by chemical abortions. They’re revealing the fact that huge numbers of women regret their abortions for the rest of their lives.

In short, young women are finally hearing the truth about abortion: It doesn’t get rid of a “blob of tissue:” It kills a living baby. And it’s not the safe surgery that advocates claim: It carries terrible risks and long-term consequences.

The fact that so many women have suffered at the hands of the abortion industry is tragic. But it’s wonderful news that so many young women are finally getting wise to the lies. We will never win the abortion war without winning the hearts and minds of the American people—and especially young women.
This is why we must keep telling young people the truth behind abortion. And we must continue helping women in crisis pregnancies through groups like Care Net and the Nurturing Network.

For 32 years, support for legal abortion has been based on a pack of lies. But now, the truth is coming out, and young women are listening: Abortion often damages women—and always kills babies.

http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?...mplate=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16597

You would think Mr Sanger would be happy at this news..I wonder why he is not ???????????????????????????????

 

[dilloduck]

Getting Wise to the Lies
Why Young Women are Choosing Life

August 18, 2005





http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?...mplate=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16597

You would think Mr Sanger would be hapy at this news..I wonder why he is not???????????????????????????????

Girls growing up and rebelling against thier mothers "values" can be a positive thing too!

 

[Bonnie]

Girls growing up and rebelling against thier mothers "values" can be a positive thing too!

So true!!

 

[Annie]

So true!!

Rebelling against their fathers probably a better thing!

 

[dilloduck]

Rebelling against their fathers probably a better thing!

My bad--shoulda said rebelling against WHOEVER gave em the idea that abortion was an ok option. I just asssumed that they would listen to thier mothers more on this one but then again, I have a son, so what do I know? :huh:

 

[alien21010]

I've always held that the right to choice is a right, regardless of the topic at hand (and legal precedent does side with me on this one). However, when it comes to abortion, it should be left to the states as relegated in the bill of rights (amendment IX or X: can't remember which).

Regardless, overturning Roe V Wade would do little to change the way things are regarding abortions. A few states would ban it, some states would do nothing, and other states would affirm it as a right. However, the thing that I do SEE happening, is the unification of the left and moderates. Most people do NOT want to see Roe V Wade overturned, and as much as this has become a staple issue for the right... It could come back to haunt them if they do overturn it.

In my opinion, it was never the federal government's right to declare this a right to begin with. The Bill of Rights clearly delegates this as a state's right to decide. That being said, there should be NO legislation or legal rulings at the federal level in either way.

In fact, the conservative states can ban it, as long as they don't prohibit women from seeking legal and safe abortions in other states that do legalize it.

 

[Gem]

alien,

You bring up several interesting, albeit conflicting points regarding this topic.

Most people do NOT want to see Roe V Wade overturned

While I agree, wholeheartedly, I also believe strongly that most people do not want to see it overturned because they have absolutely no clue what they are really talking about. They think that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortions would become illegal and teenage girls would be giving themselves abortions with coathangers in back alleys in droves...neither part of that imagining is true.

So if we, you and I that is, know that Roe v. Wade would NOT mean the end of abortions, and we both know it should not have been left up to a court to decide...why should we be fighting to reward stupid peoples misconceptions?