We have a new update on The Future of the Penny Arcade Forums.

Will Alabama force the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade?

Lady EriLady Eri Registered User regular
edited February 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
So with the new makeup of the court, and a direct assault on the precedent, do you guys think there are enough votes to overturn Roe v Wade? If that happens, will the federal government legislate a right to an abortion, or will it die in filibuster? If it's up to each state, which way will most states go? Can you outlaw cross border abortions?

Ultimately this will come down to whether Alito and Roberts believe life starts at conception or not.

Lady Eri on

Posts

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    It's a bill that's not even out of committee yet. That's hardly a "direct assault."

    Thanatos on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I think that if this passed, there would be a treasure-trove of litigation we'd have to sort through as interested parties launched challenges related to the citizenship status of an embryo, not to mention the direct challenges about the rights of the woman.

    Yar on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    If this passes, the federal government should just cut off all federal money going to Alabama, since they've decided to waste it on retarded shit like this.

    Thanatos on
  • archonwarparchonwarp Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    If this passes, the federal government should just cut off all federal money going to Alabama, since they've decided to waste it on retarded shit like this.

    archonwarp on
    873342-1.png
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Over-turning Roe vs. Wade would be the worst thing possible for the Republican party, as then they'd lose a banner under which they mobilize their religious base.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • CindersCinders Whose sails were black when it was windy Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Over-turning Roe vs. Wade would be the worst thing possible for the Republican party, as then they'd lose a banner under which they mobilize their religious base.

    I disagree. They would just have to claim that the Democrats would reinstate it to get the religious base all riled up.

    Cinders on
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Cinders wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Over-turning Roe vs. Wade would be the worst thing possible for the Republican party, as then they'd lose a banner under which they mobilize their religious base.

    I disagree. They would just have to claim that the Democrats would reinstate it to get the religious base all riled up.
    And they'd still have threats of gays, atheists, and evolution to use as scarecrows to rally the mindless fundie hordes.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    What do Roberts and Alito have to do with anything? Kennedy is the important one, and he's supported the fundamentals of Roe before in Casey. It's on specific things where he might go with the conservatives. Like parental consent laws or something along those lines, but not on 'can I has abortions?'

    If McCain won then there'd be a question of whether or not Roe would be safe as Ginsberg and Stevens are not long for this Earth. With Obama the Court isn't going to change it's balance.

    moniker on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    By declaring personhood at the moment of conception, the legislation would grant all unborn babies the rights of the U.S. Constitution, and the Alabama Constitution of 1901.
    Are they sure that won't have any hilarious effects other than outlawing abortion?

    Couscous on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    By declaring personhood at the moment of conception, the legislation would grant all unborn babies the rights of the U.S. Constitution, and the Alabama Constitution of 1901.
    Are they sure that won't have any hilarious effects other than outlawing abortion?

    A miscarriage of justice, perhaps.

    Oh god, I'm so sorry.

    moniker on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Wouldn't this make infants conceived in the USA by illegal immigrants citizens of the USA if the law wasn't immediately shot down by the Supreme Court?

    Couscous on
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Wouldn't this make infants conceived in the USA by illegal immigrants citizens of the USA if the law wasn't immediately shot down by the Supreme Court?

    It's impossible to prove, all they'd have to do is claim they'd had sex in Alabama (or the US if it was expanded) somewhere in that timeframe and the kid could claim citizenship. They wouldn't even really have to go to Alabama, as long as they didn't have credit card records or something proving they were on the other side of the country at the time.


    It'd also mean the census would have to start counting fetuses.

    Scooter on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Scooter wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Wouldn't this make infants conceived in the USA by illegal immigrants citizens of the USA if the law wasn't immediately shot down by the Supreme Court?

    It's impossible to prove, all they'd have to do is claim they'd had sex in Alabama (or the US if it was expanded) somewhere in that timeframe and the kid could claim citizenship. They wouldn't even really have to go to Alabama, as long as they didn't have credit card records or something proving they were on the other side of the country at the time.


    It'd also mean the census would have to start counting fetuses.

    Fetii.

    moniker on
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Other ideas:

    - Claiming a fetus as a dependent on your taxes

    - Having to buy an extra plane ticket when flying from Alabama while pregnant

    Scooter on
  • TalkaTalka Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Over-turning Roe vs. Wade would be the worst thing possible for the Republican party, as then they'd lose a banner under which they mobilize their religious base.

    I think letting Roe v. Wade get overturned would be the most Machiavellian thing the Democrats could do. I can't think of anything that would do more harm to the Republicans.

    Talka on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    How would this work with the fourth amendment's ban on unreasonable arrests?

    Couscous on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Scooter wrote: »
    Other ideas:

    - Claiming a fetus as a dependent on your taxes

    - Having to buy an extra plane ticket when flying from Alabama while pregnant

    Evicting a pregnant woman from an apartment for having an unlisted tenant.

    Charging an obstetrician for manslaughter after a stillbirth.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Alabama doesn't get to decide who is or isn't entitled to the rights of US citizens. That power is reserved for Congress. If Congress chooses to exclude fetuses from citizenship, the states have no power to overturn that decision. The statute is unconstitutional on those grounds, without even touching the abortion question.

    Matrijs on
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Alabama doesn't get to decide who is or isn't entitled to the rights of US citizens. That power is reserved for Congress. If Congress chooses to exclude fetuses from citizenship, the states have no power to overturn that decision. The statute is unconstitutional on those grounds, without even touching the abortion question.

    Which is exactly what SCOTUS would do, overturn the law without touching Roe v. Wade. Alabama is going to have to be a hell a lot more creative than that if they want to really overturn RvW.

    Tomanta on
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Queue controversial, argument-starting statement:

    Roe v. Wade should have been overturned a long time ago. For the reasons discussed that shitstorm of a Abortion/Feminist thread, I don't believe the core issue is one of women's rights, it's whether the fetus is a human person and should have the rights there granted.

    And the fetus' personhood should be settled with specific litigation, either federally or by the states. Not by the courts. Their job is to interpret the law, and constitutional law (the basis for Roe v. Wade's decision) does not address when a fetus becomes a person.

    For the record, I'm in support of the legality of first trimester abortions, iffy on second trimester, and think third trimester should be banned. So please don't start flinging accusations about me being a religious nut.

    In any case, I think that needs to be settled by way of law, not court arbitration.

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    And the fetus' personhood should be settled with specific litigation, either federally or by the states. Not by the courts. Their job is to interpret the law, and constitutional law (the basis for Roe v. Wade's decision) does not address when a fetus becomes a person.
    What a person is is important to the constitution. If the government could decide something is or isn't a person must because they feel like it, a huge can of worms is opened up that is ripe for abuse.

    Edit: The Supreme Court being able to decide what is and isn't a person goes back to at least 1886:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

    Couscous on
  • Lord Of The PantsLord Of The Pants Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    You think you guys are crazy?

    This shit is crazy.
    CONTROVERSIAL Christian leader Danny Nalliah says the Victorian bushfires are a punishment for decriminalising abortion.

    "INCENDIARY" abortion law reforms last year that made Victoria "the baby-killing state" are responsible for the devastating bushfires, controversial Christian leader Danny Nalliah said yesterday.

    Mr Nalliah's Australia Day prayer rallies have been supported by former prime minister John Howard and former treasurer Peter Costello. Mr Costello delivered a televised address to Mr Nalliah's Australia Day prayer meeting last month.

    Mr Costello yesterday rejected Mr Nalliah's abortion explanation for the fires as indecent. "To link the death and the suffering of bushfire victims to other political events is appalling, heartless and wrong," he said.

    Lord Of The Pants on
    steam_sig.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Australia is basically America Junior.

    Thanatos on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    You would think that God would be more prompt when punishing a people for baby murder.

    Couscous on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    You would think that God would be more prompt when punishing a people for baby murder.

    And a bit more consistent, or at least original. He drowned New Orleans for being all sinful and burns Oz. Where's the locust? Where're the fire breathing toads? Disappointing apocalypse is disappointing.

    moniker on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    You would think that God would be more prompt when punishing a people for baby murder.

    And a bit more consistent, or at least original. He drowned New Orleans for being all sinful and burns Oz. Where's the locust? Where're the fire breathing toads? Disappointing apocalypse is disappointing.

    Fire breathing toads are common in Australia. Nothing unusual about those.

    Couscous on
  • The ScribeThe Scribe Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Over-turning Roe vs. Wade would be the worst thing possible for the Republican party, as then they'd lose a banner under which they mobilize their religious base.

    The Roe v. Wade decision was good for the Republican Party. More than any other single event it lead to the creation of the religious right. This is a mass movement that encourages low income whites to vote against their economic interests by voting Republican. If Roe is overturned abortion will quickly be legalized in most states. Some will explicitly protect legal abortion in their state constitutions. This will convince Christian conservatives that they are not a "moral majority," but a marginalized minority. Most will retreat from politics and resume their passive wait for the second coming of Christ. The GOP will be deprived of a constituency that has been essential for electoral victories.

    The Scribe on
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    The right (ultra-born again right, I should say) doesn't actually want roe v wade to be overturned. It's their largest rallying cry.I really don't think senate republicans will even let it out of committee if it comes to a federal piece of legislation.

    As much as people like to think it's a states rights issue, it isn't. It's a protection of women all over the country issue.

    Outlaw of abortion wouldn't decrease the number of abortions so much as increase the number of fatal illegal terminations and abandonments.

    dispatch.o on
  • GoodOmensGoodOmens Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    By declaring personhood at the moment of conception, the legislation would grant all unborn babies the rights of the U.S. Constitution, and the Alabama Constitution of 1901.
    Are they sure that won't have any hilarious effects other than outlawing abortion?

    I think we would soon see a women charged with neglect after having a miscarriage.

    GoodOmens on
    steam_sig.png
    IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    The right (ultra-born again right, I should say) doesn't actually want roe v wade to be overturned.

    People say this a lot, but I think that it's a misguided sentiment, and that it assumes a level of duplicity that doesn't exist. Not all Republicans are True Believers, but at least some are. I would be very, very surprised if there weren't Republicans in the senate who would consider the prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade to be the sweetest triumph of their political career, and the ultimate legacy to leave their children.

    MrMister on
  • Delicious SteveDelicious Steve Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    If unborn fetuses are considered people - Miscarriages would need to be reported to the police and thoroughly investigated, you could charge a pregnant woman who lost her unborn child with murder or manslaughter, and almost definitely charge her for being negligent in some way, her entire body would also become a crime scene, detailed crime scene photos that a jury would have to examine - I'll stop before we go too far down that road.

    But, i say if the thing is still using the mother's blood and placenta, it's not yet a human being. A baby can be raised by anyone*, it's an independent organism.

    Abortion is a good option, nobody should ever be forced to do it, nobody should ever be forced not to do it. It's a 2nd chance in many cases, and the only chance for the more unfortunate. Why it's an argument is beyond me. What i think is worth arguing about is, what say does the man have in an aborted pregnancy? Not his body, but it's his child, and he would be legally responsible for it if the woman kept it; therefore it's a pretty big concern.

    *Any responsible and capable person

    Delicious Steve on
  • edited February 2009
    This content has been removed.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    MrMister wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    The right (ultra-born again right, I should say) doesn't actually want roe v wade to be overturned.

    People say this a lot, but I think that it's a misguided sentiment, and that it assumes a level of duplicity that doesn't exist. Not all Republicans are True Believers, but at least some are. I would be very, very surprised if there weren't Republicans in the senate who would consider the prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade to be the sweetest triumph of their political career, and the ultimate legacy to leave their children.
    Agreed. You can't have a self-contradictory assessment of the opportunistic politician. Republicans who came to power because of RvW might have come to power as Dems on some other issue otherwise. And most people don't support an issue just because they like being in a fight.

    Yar on
Sign In or Register to comment.