Could Roe v. Wade be history?

[budcrew08]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26460555/

I'm sure this is part of the other thread, but I thought this rendered merit as its own.

Could a McCain-Palin team completely take away a woman's right to choose? Looking for a good discussion, not the same bull****, please.

 

[deskslave]

No. They're not willing to sacrifice control of Congress and quite possibly the White House for a generation. Simple as that.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Biggest Democratic Straw Man of every recent campaign.

Their own congress would have to approve the judges to make it happen. And the GOP would have to be willing to commit political suicide for a generation.

Roe v. Wade is quite safe.

 

[Freelance Hack]

If I'm correct on this, overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal. It would allow states to make abortion illegal.

Naturally, some states would enact legislation to ban it outright, but not all states would.

 

[buckweaver]

Naturally, some states would enact legislation to ban it outright, but not all states would.

And if so, that seems like an awfully un-American way to run a country, IMO. We going to do this for any other issues? Imagine if Missouri decided to prohibit alcohol and Illinois didn't. We going to force everyone who wanted to drink to move away from Missouri, for "states' rights"? **** that ****. That war's long over.

If it's illegal, it should be illegal everywhere. If it's not, then you have to let it stand. If you don't like it ... well, nobody says you HAVE to get one.

 

[DanOregon]

I don't know - gay marriage in some states and not others seems to be working okay. And in some states, it's almost impossible to get an abortion because there aren't any doctors that perform it. Some states banned it for almost 200 years and the country did okay. If Roe was overturned you might have the Dakotas, Alabama and Mississippi, South Carolina and Oklahoma have referendums that passed it, while big states like Texas and Florida would probably vote it down. The way the GOP is going though, I'd assume they'd want to keep the issue out there to rally their base. I just worry that if it was returned to the states you'd see initiative on the issue during every election cycle, for it then against it, for it then against it.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

I don't know - gay marriage in some states and not others seems to be working okay.

At some point --- not within the next 10 years, but within our lifetimes --- that dichotomy will fade away and gay marriage will be available nationwide.

 

[Dickens Cider]

I don't know - gay marriage in some states and not others seems to be working okay.

Not really. I think it's atrocious that some states think they can define marriage.

That aside, I agree with Piotr. It's a straw man. I still think the Supreme Court is too important to have a Republican stay in the White House, for myriad reasons.

 

[Freelance Hack]

Naturally, some states would enact legislation to ban it outright, but not all states would.

And if so, that seems like an awfully un-American way to run a country, IMO. We going to do this for any other issues? Imagine if Missouri decided to prohibit alcohol and Illinois didn't. We going to force everyone who wanted to drink to move away from Missouri, for "states' rights"? **** that ****. That war's long over.

If it's illegal, it should be illegal everywhere. If it's not, then you have to let it stand. If you don't like it ... well, nobody says you HAVE to get one.

Actually buck, states and municipalities have the right to ban alcohol. Almost all of Kentucky was dry for some 60-plus years. When Prohibition was repealed, most states chose to repeal the ban as well. Kentucky (and maybe a few others) chose to keep the ban in place and make municipalities decide to whether repeal the ban.

Like it or not, this country, called America, is made of 50 distinct states and in most cases the states have the right to make decisions for themselves. Now, there may be repercussions for their choices (i.e., lower the drinking age to under 21 and you lose a chunk of your federal highway dollars), but they have choices.

I'm ambivalent about abortion. The Catholic in me believes life begins at conception, but I know not everyone shares that belief. The parent in me wonders why someone would want to terminate a pregnancy, but I know not everyone lives a normal life. In a perfect world, there would be no abortion, but there'd also be no murder, war, or stealing.

In reality, abortion can't be stopped overnight. I agree with the Democratic platform that we should work to minimize the number performed. That's the direction we need to take. Trying to make hard and fast rules about abortion will not stop women from having them.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

I don't know - gay marriage in some states and not others seems to be working okay.

Not really. I think it's atrocious that some states think they can define marriage.

That aside, I agree with Piotr. It's a straw man. I still think the Supreme Court is too important to have a Republican stay in the White House, for myriad reasons.

I don't know - gay marriage in some states and not others seems to be working okay.

At some point --- not within the next 10 years, but within our lifetimes --- that dichotomy will fade away and gay marriage will be available nationwide.

And when it comes to marriage, a legal contract, isn't there something in the US Constitution about states giving "full faith and credit" to such contracts?

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

I don't know - gay marriage in some states and not others seems to be working okay.

Not really. I think it's atrocious that some states think they can define marriage.

That aside, I agree with Piotr. It's a straw man. I still think the Supreme Court is too important to have a Republican stay in the White House, for myriad reasons.

I don't know - gay marriage in some states and not others seems to be working okay.

At some point --- not within the next 10 years, but within our lifetimes --- that dichotomy will fade away and gay marriage will be available nationwide.

And when it comes to marriage, a legal contract, isn't there something in the US Constitution about states giving "full faith and credit" to such contracts?

Precisely.

 

[Cadet]

Here's another factor that fails to be considered: If abortion is made illegal, will women who have one be jailed? What if they just seek one, is that akin to conspiracy? Should the doctors be jailed? What about people who had knowledge of the abortion, like a spouse or mother or friend?

Those who want to make abortion illegal rarely answer these questions.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

Here's another factor that fails to be considered: If abortion is made illegal, will women who have one be jailed? What if they just seek one, is that akin to conspiracy? Should the doctors be jailed? What about people who had knowledge of the abortion, like a spouse or mother or friend?

Those who want to make abortion illegal rarely answer these questions.

A decade or so ago, there was one guy in the Mass. legislature who introduced a bill that would have provided for the death penalty for any woman having an abortion.
He brought it up every year.

 

[buckweaver]

Here's another factor that fails to be considered: If abortion is made illegal, will women who have one be jailed? What if they just seek one, is that akin to conspiracy? Should the doctors be jailed? What about people who had knowledge of the abortion, like a spouse or mother or friend?

Those who want to make abortion illegal rarely answer these questions.

A decade or so ago, there was one guy in the Mass. legislature who introduced a bill that would have provided for the death penalty for any woman having an abortion.
He brought it up every year.

Well, that sounds reasonable. :

 

[Smallpotatoes]

Here's another factor that fails to be considered: If abortion is made illegal, will women who have one be jailed? What if they just seek one, is that akin to conspiracy? Should the doctors be jailed? What about people who had knowledge of the abortion, like a spouse or mother or friend?

Those who want to make abortion illegal rarely answer these questions.

A decade or so ago, there was one guy in the Mass. legislature who introduced a bill that would have provided for the death penalty for any woman having an abortion.
He brought it up every year.

Well, that sounds reasonable. :

Yeah, especially since if through some miracle the bill was passed and signed into law, it would have been the only death penalty eligible crime in the state.
I can't even remember the guy's name or when he left office. I think he was from North Attleboro, but that's all I can remember.

 

[old_tony]

I don't know - gay marriage in some states and not others seems to be working okay.

Not really. I think it's atrocious that some states think they can define marriage.

Even though they have throughout our country's history? States and the federal government have defined marriage forever. You just want to change the definition.

 

[steveu]

Here's another factor that fails to be considered: If abortion is made illegal, will women who have one be jailed? What if they just seek one, is that akin to conspiracy? Should the doctors be jailed? What about people who had knowledge of the abortion, like a spouse or mother or friend?

Those who want to make abortion illegal rarely answer these questions.

A decade or so ago, there was one guy in the Mass. legislature who introduced a bill that would have provided for the death penalty for any woman having an abortion.
He brought it up every year.

The "two for the price of one" bill -- ah, yes, I remember it well...

 

[Tom Petty]

I don't know - gay marriage in some states and not others seems to be working okay.

Not really. I think it's atrocious that some states think they can define marriage.

Even though they have throughout our country's history? States and the federal government have defined marriage forever. You just want to change the definition.

definitions change all the time, tony. it's called progress.

 

[JR]

I don't know - gay marriage in some states and not others seems to be working okay.

Not really. I think it's atrocious that some states think they can define marriage.

Even though they have throughout our country's history? States and the federal government have defined marriage forever. You just want to change the definition.

definitions change all the time, tony. it's called progress.

Tony doesn't believe in progress.

 

[old_tony]

I don't know - gay marriage in some states and not others seems to be working okay.

Not really. I think it's atrocious that some states think they can define marriage.

Even though they have throughout our country's history? States and the federal government have defined marriage forever. You just want to change the definition.

definitions change all the time, tony. it's called progress.

Tony doesn't believe in progress.

I believe in progress. I also know what is and isn't progress. Changing the definition of marriage is not progress.

Would changing the definition of hard work to include slackers be progress?