Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If Roe v Wade were overturned....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Tweed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:37 AM
Original message
If Roe v Wade were overturned....
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it would be up to the states to decide if abortion would be legal in their state.

So like 20 liberal states and moderate states would still have it legal. Not that this is a consolation, but I just want to see if my legal knowledge is any good without having to Google.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Goldmund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tweed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. So like a big part of the GOP's energizing would be gone
and abortions would be still be legal in some states. Tell me what is so bad about that.

No necessarily you Goldmund, but DUers in general. I realize you just answered my first question without thinking there would be a follow up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. I think this has been answered before
That would kick it back to states rights. But then as Bush does on his religious views, he cancels states rights and mandates federal control as he did with legal marijuana and assisted suicide in California and Oregon. He overrode those states voters. Bush wants to make this country a corporate theocracy, make no mistake. He owes it to the extreme religious right who took over the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renaissanceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. BUT what makes you think that
the fundies will stop there?! Surely, they'll go for the gold... they will fight tooth and nail to overturn pro-choice statutes, all the way up to the SCOTUS.

How ironic (but likely) it would be for the SCOTUS to declare pro-choice laws unconstutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. that would be political gold for the Democrats
But an awfully high price to pay indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Ron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
4. Yes, it would be up to the states
I've read that some states have laws which would ban abortions should Row v. Wase be overturned, but in most cases overturning it would mean that the status quo would be maintained until there is a change in the state's law.

It would be interesting to see Republicans really having to run for office with an anti-abortion position in moderate/liberal states. Now there are many country club Republicans who will vote for the anti-abortion candidate knowing it doesn't matter much. Right now the Repubicans can only get away with making it more difficult for the poor to get abortions, but cannot ban it. Once it becomes possible to ban it, they won't want a politician who would make it hard for thier daughters to get an abortion if needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. It has to be ratified by something like 3/4 of the states (maybe 2/3)
before it can go into effect.

It'll have just as much effect as banning alcohol back in the day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. WHAT would have to be ratified by the states?
Surely you don't mean that you think that a Supreme Court decision has to be ratified, right?

Or do you mean that if the Right wanted to pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion it would have to be ratified? That would be the case if such a foolish measure were to be tried, but at least so far, no one's suggesting any such thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
9. do they even still make metal coat hangers today...????
the consequences are going to be tragic.. times are harder now than in the day of Roe..

when they over turn Roe, women will have to have Marriage certificates and their husbands signature in order to pick up their Birth control at pharmacies.

unmarried women will not be allowed to purchase birth control..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. It's a shame that some people don't see that slippery slope.
Today, Roe V. Wade.

Tomorrow, other forms of birth control and contraceptives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carpetbagger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:32 AM
Response to Original message
11. It depends on how it's overturned, maybe like this...
Justice Roberts, with Justice Kennedy, concurring...

"The court does not in this decision negate the validity of Roe. We instead assert that since Roe, a steady precedent in federal and state legislation has reflected a growing consensus that individual rights exist prior to birth. We are not negating the inherent privacy rights of the doctor-patient relationship. We are asserting that the federal government has a manifest right under the 14th amendment to protect the denial of due process in removing rights of individuals. Federal and state legislation, including legislation enacted in the states of the attorneys general who contest the constitutionality of the Federal Child Protection Act of 2007, reflect this reality of compelling state interest."

"While we do not concur with Chief Justice Cornyn that Roe is an errant precedent, we nevertheless hold consistant with fundamental liberties the establishment of abortion as a felony in federal code."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. You Don't Have To Worry About That

Federal criminalization of Roe would result in Democratic presidents for decades, and the "law" would not be enforced. Soon Scalia and Kennedy would step down, and would be replaced by reliable Roe voters. End of nightmare. Also, Kennedy would never agree to an extension of federal power like that - - he has been snakebitten ever since Bush v. Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 18th 2014, 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC