Would you oppose a constitutional ammendment to OK Roe?

[napi21]

Here's my thought.

The pubs are always blaming the activist court for the Roe v Wade decision. Why can't the Dems propose a Constitutional ammendment clearly authorizing the privacy rights stated in Roe?

As I understand it, 68% of the Country don't wan't Roe overturned, so it sounds like this would have a very good chance of passing.

That way we could put this BS to bed and take away the biggest wedge issue they have!

[Teaser]

1. It wouldn't pass but...

it might be a decent strategy to put moderate Repugs on the spot.

[napi21]

5. Why do you think it won't pass?

Just in the last few days I've heard polls that state at least 68% of those polled don't want Roe overturned!

If I remember right, you only need 34 states to adopt a constitutional amendment. I know it probably wouldn't pass in Al, Ms, Ga & SC, but there are 50 States!

[Teaser]

20. Because

Dems control only about 21 state houses. There are 9 split states. That doesn't get us to 34.

[hobbit709]

2. The problem is

that while 68% of the country wants abortion available, 68% of the people in charge of making laws will kiss ass on the fundie whackos that give them large amounts of money.

[terrible beauty]

21. pro life candidates

All so called pro-life candidates should be asked this Question politely of course and their answers published widely .Also taking for granted their support for mandatory sentences and their blood lust for the death penalty..See *chimp

1 Sir or Madam How long should a woman serve in the penitentiary
for seeking or having an abortion.

2 As you believe abortion is the taking of human life and performing an abortion is premeditated Should all persons found guilty of performing an abortion be sentenced to death.

It is time we held their feet to the fire and follow through with the consequences of their action .
It Is Time To Make Them Answer

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. GTMA!

Posted just this morning! :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1943006&mesg_id=1943006

[napi21]

10. OH, I didn't see that post! Great minds think alike!!

I was just listening to AAR and thinking about how the Dems could use the same tactics against the Pubs as they use agains us.

They're screaming for an ammendment against gay marriage, and it seems that the only other big wedge issue they have is abortion.

Now, I don't like abortion either, I just want ti find a way to get the damn Gove't out of makeing a decision that even a RW Christian believes should be a decision of the free will God gave us to do the right thing or to sin! I don't remember ever hearing that the Gov't had any rights in that at all!

[William769]

4. I would vote for it.

[slackmaster]

6. Are you a member of Congress, or of a state legislature?

If not, you don't get to vote on Constitutional amendments.

[William769]

8. My mistake I was thinking after congress it went to the voters.

I will say this then. I will strongly recomend to my state legislature to vote for it.

[ultraist]

9. exactly. it wouldn't pass in a Repuke controlled legislature

If we win back some seats during the midterms, it's possible it would pass then.

[Dr Ron]

13. But would it affect the legislatures

If support for this became an issue in each race for the legislature, would Republicans be forced to change their position or risk defeat? So far country club Republicans don't worry about voting for an anti-abortion candidate knowing that the Row v. Wade will keep aportion legal. If we can get people feeling that support of this is necessary (bdecause Row v Wade is in danger of being overturned) this could change how they look at things.

Of course if Row v Wade were actually over turned, they would pay even more attention to any legislative battles over this

[napi21]

12. But tany ammendment passed by Congress HAS to be confirmed by 34 States!

Could this happen today? Of course not! But I feel confident the Dems will take back the Congress...someday, and I think it sounds like a reasonable position to take during a campaign. Any Dem candidate could say, OK, I agree with all sides on this issue. I propose an ammendment to clarify the Womans healthcare issue, and it would be the PEOPLE who will decide yes or no!

[slackmaster]

16. No, ordinary citizens do not vote on Constitutional amendments

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlev.html

[bryant69]

7. THey'd start screaming states rights

Same as they always do.

I wonder how many states currently have laws (invalidated by Roe v. Wade) that prohibit abortion?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mtnester]

15. Ohio is working on one right now, to be prepared for vote in October

just in time to go to the new members of SCOTUS. Ohio's is really restrictive...no clause for the life of the mother, or resulting from rape or incest, and felony crime if you are a resident of Ohio and go out of state to have one.

Ohio with all its "connections" shall be the state that takes Roe v Wade back to SCOTUS. . . the timing is just too perfect.

[the_spectator]

11. Not a bad idea -- it WOULD work, but only AFTER

Roe v. Wade is overturned. We go through a period of time where most states allow it but many states ban it, and all the attendant hoo-ha: travelling across state lines for abortions, a huge new charity that our side will support - a kind of latter-day underground railroad that will pay for poor women in Alabama to travel to get their abortions, etc. etc.

Absolutely. After a few years of that, as most Americans want abortion to be an option, I can see a constitutional amendment working, eventually.

I wonder how it would be framed? How would you write the language for the amendment?

[Kraklen]

14. 13th amendment

[TheWraith]

22. I think you're mistaken.

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. Perhaps you're thinking of the 14th, which includes the Equal Protection Clause?

[John Q. Citizen]

17. I think it's a good strategy. It probably wouldn't pass but attempting

to explicitly write in a "right to privacy" in the constitution would shift the debate.

[zipplewrath]

19. It's been proposed before

You might be surprised that although this has broad support, the devil is in the details and you probably couldn't get more than 30% support for any single proposal. ERA and Term Limits both had board support, but any single proposal always had trouble, even within its own supporters.

Just as an exercise, propose something and see if folks 'round here don't take issue with the language. Are you going to propose what Roe really said, i.e. a right to privacy? You going to explicitly permit abortions? Which ones? How long? What age? Parental
consent? How about other medical procedures? Will such an amendment be considered restrictive in the sense that other procedures won't enjoy the same consideration for privacy? What role will states have in regulating the medical industry?

[rock]

18. Yes, I'd oppose it

A constitutional amendment would open too many doors. It would not be for our (the people's) good.

[mondo joe]

23. I'd need to see the language in the amendment to form a position.

[Walt Starr]

24. It would be a reverse wedge and would work in our favor

Damn straight I'd support it! Hell, just go back to Griswold and espouse the privacy in that decision!

Here's a name, The Freedom of Privacy Amendment.

It would be overwhelmingly popular. Probably more popular than the flag protection amendment. It would work as a wedge against the Republicans.

Damn good idea!