What if Roe Vs. Wade was Overturned?

[Gunny]

States have no real rights left. Without the right to secede states essentially have to accept the federal government as the final word on everything. The US is no longer a collection of states that agree to accept the federal government - it is a mass democracy bordering on socialism. The federal government is getting bigger and more authoritative - not smaller. It will not give back rights it has specifically taken from the states and when it gets the chance it will take more away. I just think you are wrong.

I am not assuming any more than the Supreme Court - the made up the right to privacy, then they gave control of this right to the federal government - not the states, and now YOU believe they will just give this made up right to the states? You are naive.

Naive, huh? Not today, anyway.

The law -- the U S Constitution -- delegates the right to make laws not specifically covered in the Constitution. That is FACT.

Amendment X:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

THAT is law.

Please note that I have mentioned twice the reality of the Fed usurping the rights of states to make their own laws. I am not naive, nor wrong because the Fed oversteps its bounds.

Try cracking the lid on that box you've locked yourself into and seeing that I am basically saying the same thing you are concerning the reality of the situation, just a different way.

Where we disagree is that it IS law. Until it is changed, that's how it is.

 

[Hobbit]

The federal government has made clear it wants to control abortion and I believe it will not give rights back to the states. The federal government would like to outlaw gay marriage and they will as soon as they get the chance. One state cannot establish 3 as the age of consent or ban all firearms or legalize drunk driving. Eventually the federal courts would be asked to decide if these types of laws are OK. The states would be forced to step back in line with the federal position, whatever it may be at the time.

To your "The State of Georgia versus [insert name]." I will not attempt to create a hypothetical situation for you to nitpick. You can think of many yourself with your genius IQ. The Supreme Court does hear cases still, doesn't it? If you can commit murder in one state and not in another, I am pretty sure the federal judicial system will get involved - you are right - I am not sure how, but they seem to get involved in significantly less important issues - Schiavo ring any bells?. Then the federal government will decide what can and cannot happen. I happen to think the Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of laws against murder. And to be very clear, the Supreme Court will also rule against laws that make murder legal.

Do you really believe the federal government will just hand back the right to decide abortion laws to the states and wash their hands of it forever? I simply do not believe this will happen. Like I said, overturning Roe vs. Wade will not cause all of this instantly, but I believe it is the first step towards the federal government establishing once and for all an official US position on abortion.

You are correct about not ALL states rights have been stripped away - the states still have rights that no one cares about, ones the state should not have and ones they cannot enforce. But let us stick to the topic at hand.

It seems to me we might just disagree about what the federal government might do - not what they can do, but we are discussing the can part. Am I wrong?

You seem to be saying that they will do, and I think you're wrong. 30 years ago, 9 idiots in black robes took away another state right, and it's caused nothing but a constant headache for everyone on Capital Hill ever since. If the whole bunch has half a brain among them, they'll do what they seem to be implying they'll do right now, and that's washing their hands of the whole affair and passing the headache on to the state governments. Even if it is decided federally, it'll be decided by Congress and a popular vote, causing less controversy. And NO elected official would EVER totally ban abortion. That's a death wish.

 

[Powerman]

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

I think his point is that the demand for abortions won't change so there is no point in making it illegal since people will still have abortions anyway.

 

[Powerman]

Abortion should be restricted. Not banned.
It should be restricted to instances where carrying the child to term will kill the mother, or instances of rape.

However Rape victims should be strongly ecouraged to adopt.

Some people really aren't fit to be raising kids. And unfortunately no one wants to adopt black babies.

 

[elephant]

You seem to be saying that they will do, and I think you're wrong. 30 years ago, 9 idiots in black robes took away another state right, and it's caused nothing but a constant headache for everyone on Capital Hill ever since. If the whole bunch has half a brain among them, they'll do what they seem to be implying they'll do right now, and that's washing their hands of the whole affair and passing the headache on to the state governments. Even if it is decided federally, it'll be decided by Congress and a popular vote, causing less controversy. And NO elected official would EVER totally ban abortion. That's a death wish.

I think we agree to the obvious - overturning Roe vs. Wade will change abortion laws. You think the federal government will give the right to choose exclusively to the states and I think the federal government will want to put in their two cents whenever possible and keep all the power it can.

Does this sound about right?

 

[Hobbit]

I think we agree to the obvious - overturning Roe vs. Wade will change abortion laws. You think the federal government will give the right to choose exclusively to the states and I think the federal government will want to put in their two cents whenever possible and keep all the power it can.

Does this sound about right?

Yeah, that sounds about right. Constitutionally, it should default to the state, but I have a feeling the nanny lobbyists won't leave it alone. Hopefully, Congress will outvote the nanny lobbyists and put this issue to rest on the federal level.

 

[Gunny]

There are states rights on paper. The problem they are only on paper they are not exercised by any state and now they have all been assumed by the federal government - why should I think the federal government will start handing them back to the states?

The Constitution reads beautifully, but it ends there.

Do we agree on this or no?

Damn ... I forgot about this thread. For the most part, we agree.

 

[Annie]

Damn ... I forgot about this thread. For the most part, we agree.

If the people, push the states, and the states push the courts, we could see a difference.

What is so difficult about the concept that power flows through the people? 'The people' are way too lazy to excercise it for too long.

 

[Gunny]

If the people, push the states, and the states push the courts, we could see a difference.

What is so difficult about the concept that power flows through the people? 'The people' are way too lazy to excercise it for too long.

Can't argue with that. I happen to be a proponent of state's rights, and government at the lowest level. Hard to disagree though that the fed has usurped most of that authority.

 

[Annie]

Can't argue with that. I happen to be a proponent of state's rights, and government at the lowest level. Hard to disagree though that the fed has usurped most of that authority.

By attrition. When the people call for it back, it will be back.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The overturning of "Roe v. Wade" would have many unintended consequences beyond simply making if even more difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a safe, legal abortion in this country. By rejecting the core of "Roe v. Wade", that some issues are too private and personal to be subjected to governmental intrusion, a whole, ghastly can of worms is opened.

<blockquote>...Roe v. Wade is at the core of American jurisprudence, and its multiple strands of reasoning concerning marital privacy, medical privacy, bodily autonomy, psychological liberty and gender equality are all connected to myriad other cases concerning the rights of parents to rear their
children, the right to marry, the right use contraception, the right to have children, and the right torefuse unwanted medical treatment... - <a href=http://judiciary.senate.gov/print_testimony.cfm?id=1553&wit_id=4398>United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary: The Consequences of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, June 23, 2005</a></blockquote>

It was in 1965 that state laws against contraception were struck down by the SCOTUS in "<a href=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=381&invol=479>Griswold v. Connecticut</a>" as being unconstitutional invasions of the privacy of married couples. This precedent was extended to unmarried persons only in 1971. The right to privacy established in "Griswold v. Connecticut" served as the basis for "Roe v. Wade".

This right to privacy extends to all areas of life, including the right to make medical decision...the right to decide whether or not to have children...the right of a terminally ill patient to refuse medical care...All are rooted in this same concept of privacy. Overturn "Roe v. Wade" and this entire fabric will unravel. A paternalistic and overbearing government steps in and makes these decisions, regardless of the wishes of the individual.

Should "Roe v. Wade" be overturned, women will no longer be the misstresses of their own lives and fates. Unable to make the determination as to whether they wish to get, or be, pregnant, the state will make that decision for them. They will once again be relegated to the status of second class citizens.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The overturning of "Roe v. Wade" would have many unintended consequences beyond simply making if even more difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a safe, legal abortion in this country. By rejecting the core of "Roe v. Wade", that some issues are too private and personal to be subjected to governmental intrusion, a whole, ghastly can of worms is opened.

<blockquote>...Roe v. Wade is at the core of American jurisprudence, and its multiple strands of reasoning concerning marital privacy, medical privacy, bodily autonomy, psychological liberty and gender equality are all connected to myriad other cases concerning the rights of parents to rear their
children, the right to marry, the right use contraception, the right to have children, and the right torefuse unwanted medical treatment... - <a href=http://judiciary.senate.gov/print_testimony.cfm?id=1553&wit_id=4398>United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary: The Consequences of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, June 23, 2005</a></blockquote>

It was in 1965 that state laws against contraception were struck down by the SCOTUS in "<a href=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=381&invol=479>Griswold v. Connecticut</a>" as being unconstitutional invasions of the privacy of married couples. This precedent was extended to unmarried persons only in 1971. The right to privacy established in "Griswold v. Connecticut" served as the basis for "Roe v. Wade".

This right to privacy extends to all areas of life, including the right to make medical decision...the right to decide whether or not to have children...the right of a terminally ill patient to refuse medical care...All are rooted in this same concept of privacy. Overturn "Roe v. Wade" and this entire fabric will unravel. A paternalistic and overbearing government steps in and makes these decisions, regardless of the wishes of the individual.

Should "Roe v. Wade" be overturned, women will no longer be the misstresses of their own lives and fates. Unable to make the determination as to whether they wish to get, or be, pregnant, the state will make that decision for them. They will once again be relegated to the status of second class citizens.

You're an idiot. Expanding the right to privacy to validate any and all things done privately is the real can of worms. Next thing you know it will cover the right to molest children, if it's done privately. It's simply logically untenable and would destroy any society which realistically embraced this evident foolishness.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You're an idiot. Expanding the right to privacy to validate any and all things done privately is the real can of worms. Next thing you know it will cover the right to molest children, if it's done privately. It's simply logically untenable and would destroy any society which realistically embraced this evident foolishness.

Your analogy is as flawed as your reasoning. Child molestation is a crime whether it occurs in private, as it always does, or not. So, come back when you've put together a better argument. Dismissed.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your analogy is as flawed as your reasoning. Child molestation is a crime whether it occurs in private, as it always does, or not. So, come back when you've put together a better argument. Dismissed.

But you claim abortion is about privacy, when it's really about life and death. why not claim anything is about privacy? Dismiss yourself, reject. Your foolishness is revealed.

Tell me where my reasoning is flawed?

 

[Bullypulpit]

But you claim abortion is about privacy, when it's really about life and death. why not claim anything is about privacy? Dismiss yourself, reject. Your foolishness is revealed.

Tell me where my reasoning is flawed?

No, it's not about 'life and death', as you put it. It's about a woman's ability to decide to have a safe, legal abortion. That is between a woman and her physician, thus it is a priviledged and private relationship which the state has no right to involve itself in.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, it's not about 'life and death', as you put it. It's about a woman's ability to decide to have a safe, legal abortion. That is between a woman and her physician, thus it is a priviledged and private relationship which the state has no right to involve itself in.

What about a woman's right to choose to commit arson? Abortion is killing. It IS about life and death you monstrousity.

 

[Hobbit]

No, it's not about 'life and death', as you put it. It's about a woman's ability to decide to have a safe, legal abortion. That is between a woman and her physician, thus it is a priviledged and private relationship which the state has no right to involve itself in.

Some of us believe that a fetus is a person. Thus, it's actually between the woman, her doctor, and her child, except the child doesn't get an input. It *is* a life or death issue. The debate lies, or should lie, solely on the basis of whether or not a fetus is a person. It has nothing to do with women's rights. If a fetus is not a person, the state cannot overwrite her right to surgically modify her own body. If a fetus is a person, the woman's right to alter her body cannot overwrite the child's right to live. We wouldn't allow plastic surgery if a 3 month old baby had to be killed for every operation, therefore a mother's right to the surgury cannot overwrite the child's right to live if that child is deemed a person.

 

[MissileMan]

Some of us believe that a fetus is a person. Thus, it's actually between the woman, her doctor, and her child, except the child doesn't get an input. It *is* a life or death issue. The debate lies, or should lie, solely on the basis of whether or not a fetus is a person. It has nothing to do with women's rights. If a fetus is not a person, the state cannot overwrite her right to surgically modify her own body. If a fetus is a person, the woman's right to alter her body cannot overwrite the child's right to live. We wouldn't allow plastic surgery if a 3 month old baby had to be killed for every operation, therefore a mother's right to the surgury cannot overwrite the child's right to live if that child is deemed a person.

That's the $64,000 question. The extemists on both ends are unwilling to compromise at all from their positions. There is NO WAY, that the truth will ever be discovered to a 100% certainty, so a middle ground should be reached where a majority can agree. The extremists will just have to suck it up.

As for the mother's rights, they always supercede the rights of the fetus. As of yet anyways, I haven't heard anyone argue that a woman is obligated to carry a baby to term if her life is in danger.

 

[Hobbit]

That's the $64,000 question. The extemists on both ends are unwilling to compromise at all from their positions. There is NO WAY, that the truth will ever be discovered to a 100% certainty, so a middle ground should be reached where a majority can agree. The extremists will just have to suck it up.

As for the mother's rights, they always supercede the rights of the fetus. As of yet anyways, I haven't heard anyone argue that a woman is obligated to carry a baby to term if her life is in danger.

Right, if it's the same right for the fetus and the mother (e.g. fetus' life versus mother's life), it defaults to the mother, since the mother is the only one available for comment. However, I've heard of women getting abortions just so they wouldn't get stretch marks. That's just wrong.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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:

States rights are extremely valid. There are major differences in many laws of different states. Look at the marriage laws now

I just drove across country, and yes, there are different cultures in different states. I guarantee you I could tell if I was in calif, mass. miss or new mexico.