What makes anyone think Roe v. Wade will be overturned?

No, you didn't. You threw out two ridiculous, illegal hypothetical situations after asking for some ridiculous stipulation that we not FORCE abortions, as if any of us wants that.

Care to try again?

 

Trust me, I know what responsibility is. I have taken control of my personal situation by ensuring that I won't bring a child into this world that I cannot afford and am not emotionally prepared to raise. I have helped many friends to educate themselves and follow through on selecting a birth control so that they, too, can be responsible and not produce a child they can't properly care for.

For the record, I have never advocated abortion as a means of regular birth control. But I believe it should be legal and, as a medical procedure, regulated for the health and safety of women.

And it is not all about money, but living costs money. Food, clothing, shelter, at the very least. But money doesn't grow on trees, and conservatives don't want it to come out of their pockets, either. You can't create the problem without offering a solution.

 

Veering away from the never-emotional, always thoughtful abortion debate for a sec, I've thought for some time that abortion is the most overrated of all election issues. We've had every combination of Rep/Dem White Houses, Congresses and Supreme Courts, but very little changes. And as Starman pointed out, most states probably would do nothing to make abortion any less legal than it is now -- the high court isn't going to declare abortion unconstitutional; even when I was a foot soldier in the right to life movement once upon a midnight dreary, that never came up. They'll either codify its legal status, or it won't do anything one way or another. And my guess is, the states that do ban abortion probably don't have many in-state abortion providers anyway, so the impact will be muted.

 

Abortion, as it is practiced today in the US, is done almost exclusively for regular birth control. Anyone who doesn't admit that is lying to themselves.

And why is this "medical procedure" rarely practiced in hospitals? Seems to me it's almost exclusively practiced by abortion mills called "clinics" to try to make the existence of the business seem legitimate.

 

Do you have links or data on abortion rates at hospitals vs. clinics? I can't find any. The CDC's annual abortion surveillance data collection does not break down by location. And for the purposes of conversation, do you consider an OB/GYN's office to be a hospital or a clinic?

 

Hey, I tried. Read the board for years and thought I would chime in on this one since I actually do have some knowledge on the subject.

To the poster above who noted that SoDak voted down the abortion ban: the fact that there was no mother's health exception was a significant reason for that. If the same bill, or better yet, an identical bill but with a mother's heath exception, were put on the ballot in Utah, I'd bet it would pass.

 

Tony, I guess you want the women in your life to stick one of these up in them if they're raped and they get pregnant.



Cause I guarangoddamntee you that if I'd gotten pregnant when I was raped, I wouldn't have had that bastard's child and it would have out of my body as soon as I could have gotten it out, regardless of what I had to do to get rid of it.

 

o_t has no stats. He just knows.
And the real target is not Roe, which is being slowly gutted de facto until its de jure existence won't mean much, but Griswold and a recognized right to privacy. That's because the "movement" in national politics is all about the control of women's sexuality. And it always has been.

 

The right to privacy's implicit.

And those (like the current scumbags) who take joy in chipping away at it . . . can bite me.

 

Except, of course, when the principle of judicial review was established -- in Marbury vs. Madison -- Jemmy went along with it. Grudgingly, and not as enthusiastically as Hamilton in Federalist 78, but he accepted it.
There is sound legal reasoning in Griswold, particularly in its reliance on the Ninth and 14th amendments, especially the latter which, in its original intent, was adopted (somewhat ironically) as a rebuke to the "originalist" line of constitutional interpretation that had prevailed up to and through the Civil War. (Douglas is the "penumbra" and "emanation" guy. The Goldberg and Harlan II concurrences are much more substantive, IMHO.)
The rest of your post is, alas, more originalist boilerplate. The distinction between "judicially sound" rulings and ones you don't like seems arbitrary at best. Was Plessy "judicially sound" because it lasted until Brown v. Board? Or was the latter the product of "social leanings"? Griswold, whatever you may think of it, was not decided on "social leanings" whatever the hell that means. It was decided on the basis of the majority interpretation of the Ninth and 14th amendments, as well as White's interpretation of the due-process clause. These guys weren't NARAL lobbyists. (White dissented in Roe, for pity's sake.) As to Ben's contention, please re-read the Ninth Amendment, and the history over why it was included. Madison's change of heart on the Bill of Rights was completely engineered by the notion of the Ninth Amendment, and the concept of not limiting rights by simple enumeration.