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.
Posts
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I disagree. They would just have to claim that the Democrats would reinstate it to get the religious base all riled up.
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.
A miscarriage of justice, perhaps.
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.
- Claiming a fetus as a dependent on your taxes
- Having to buy an extra plane ticket when flying from Alabama while pregnant
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.
Evicting a pregnant woman from an apartment for having an unlisted tenant.
Charging an obstetrician for manslaughter after a stillbirth.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
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.
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
This shit is crazy.
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.
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.
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.
I think we would soon see a women charged with neglect after having a miscarriage.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
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.
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