will Republicans try to overthrow Roe vs. Wade

11/11/02 | Jared Skinner

[Kevin Curry]

See my #33.

[WFTR]

The question of who is and is not a person is a federal issue. We tried having a country where every state decided who would be a person and to what extent, and it didn't work. If we have to be technical about it, there may be a Fourteenth Amendment argument in favor of the federal government passing abortion laws. I would also favor an amendment just to make it perfectly clear, but I don't think it is an absolute necessity.

WFTR
Bill

[Reagan Man]

>>>But don't bring issues that have no place at the federal level and demand they redress them for you for the entire country.

This issue goes way beyond our Constitutional Republic. I'm sorry you can't see that. The Founding Fathers would have been opposed to across the board killing of innocent human life, through the abortion procedure. Every human being has a right to life, including human life that's developing in a womans womb.

[Fledermaus]

Well, reversal of Roe V. Wade is probably never going to happen. But that doesn't mean some abortion on demand is going to win out either.

I think the super anti-abortion folks would do better to use their votes and resources locally to push for things like true choice at abortion clinics, epsecially if they receive tax dollars. This would include adoption information, health information, the complete description of the evasive medical procedure to be used, etc.

Also, these clinics are not normally under scrutiny as to the qualifications of the workers or the manner of aborted fetus disposal or even cleanliness. These clinics should be inspected regulary and be required to pass those inspections to get their operating license. All states inspect restaurants, why not abortion clinincs?

Most girls under 18 couldn't get their ears peirced or a tatoo legally without parental consent...why not abortion?

Any underage girl seeking an abortion should be forced to identify the father and if he is over 18, arrested and prosecuted for statuatory rape.

Studies linking breast cancer to abortions, especially repeated abortions, should not be censored by the left. A woman's health is at stake and isn't that the pro-abortion (not pro-choice) position?

Sure, I want it all tomorrow too. Most conservatives do. But I'd rather fight a long war winning battle after battle rather than lose the war upfront blowing my wad early!

[Reagan Man]

>>>That's why it is unacceptable to keep silent.

Agreed!

[Burkeman1]

I can see that and perhaps you are right. In fact every founder would be appalled that abortion is allowed at all. But they would also say that it is not a federal issue. If you want to make it one then we must pass an amendment to the Constitution and make it so. I will not abide illegal orders and laws to extinguish even practices I know to be wrong. As a certain Saint said once "and wence you have struck down every law in pursuit of the Devil- and he turns to face you- where will you then turn?"

[Burkeman1]

I agree- that is the only legal way to outlaw abortion in this country in total.

[Reagan Man]

>>>If you want to make it one then we must pass an amendment to the Constitution and make it so.

Well, that's a foregone conclusion in my book. There's no other way to make it happen and have it stick for any lengthy period of time. All I'm saying is, its my opinion that the abortion issue transcends life itself. This is an argument that shouldn't be taking place in any civilized society and especially not in 21st century America. No piece of paper or government voting process should be able to take away the right to life for any human being, born or unborn!

[John Locke]

Abortion is not something within the power of the Republican party to do anything one way or the other.

Not so. The Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not absolute; it is subject to "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations, as the Congress shall make". [Art III Sect 2 para 2]

Leaving aside RvW, I for one would very much like to see Congress enact such an Exception, not least because it is 30 years overdue that our black-robed tyrants were given a massive kick in the teeth.

[VRWCmember]

I was thinking the same thing. Especially the parrotting of a Dan Rather lie from election night about the republicans controlling the presidency, both houses of congress, and the supreme court. What an idiot! Control of the supreme court was not on the ballot.

Even if one of the liberal justices retires or dies and President Bush successfully appoints and gets a conservative justice confirmed, this does not constitute republican control over the supreme court.

[VRWCmember]

Will Republicans try and overthrow Roe vs. Wade?

Supreme court decisions could be overturned by a subsequent ruling of the supreme court but not "overthrown". You sound more like a democrat trying to impersonate a distorted perception of a conservative rather than the real deal.

Why not, pro life is the largest issue for Republicans.

Not really. Making permanent the tax relief from last session is probably at the top of the list after homeland security/war on terrorism. The abortion issue is much further down the list for most republicans (even us religious right VRWC types like me).

now that we control the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, we basicly control the country.

Dan Rather, is that you disguising yourself as a rightwingrevolutionist? The only person I've actually heard make a statement as stupid as "republicans will now control the house, senate, white house, and supreme court" was dan blather in the droning coverage by CBS on election night. Until President Bush is able to replace at least two liberal clintonites that currently reside on the supreme court with solid conservative constitutional constructionist justices, there is no way that one could even remotely argue that the republicans "control" the supreme court. It simply isn't true, and really wouldn't be true even then. Of course that never stops liberals from spouting nonsense.

The democrats can still philabuster(wonder if that how you spell it).

Here you kind of gave yourself away with the "philabuster" comment. Is that you Bob Ray Sanders? You still can't get over Phil Gramm's use of the filibuster to stop some of slick's idiocy from being passed by the democrat senate prior to the 1994 GOP revolution, can you?

Nice try, now go back to the DUH site and play with your friends. FReepers are much smarter than you think.

[Always Right]

I'd love to see Roe v Wade overturned, but the country is split on the issue of abortion on demand.

That is a totally false statement. Americans are overwhelmingly against abortion on demand. About 70% of Americans are 'pro-choice' only for the case in the life of the mother. Once you include the life of mother exception, 'pro-choicers' become the minority. Then if you also make exceptions for rape and incest, the Pro-life position is favored by about 2/3 of Americans. So as long as you make it crystal clear that you are maintain protection for abortion in certain cases (life of mother, rape, incest), you will have a very solid majority of support. Of course the Dem tactic will be to confuse this issue with their usual scare tactics.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

by itself, "overturning Roe v. Wade" would do absolutely nothing Wrong. It would give control of Congress and the White House back to the Dems. 75% of the population say they are for "abortion rights". You can't shove something like this down voters throats. It will be used as ammunition by Democrats to spred fear and other lies. Education is the key. If you reduce that number to something in the area of 55% than we can begin to talk. Otherwise you are just asking for another New Deal.

[camle]

"rightwingrevolutionist signed up 2002-11-12."

that ought to tell you something.
besides, the immediate overturning of Roe v. Wade would be political suicide not only for the republicans incumbents, but for the party as a whole.
mini-me said it best - you have to change the hearts and minds before you can challenge the decision.

[Reagan Man]

... the country is split on the issue of abortion on demand.

>>>That is a totally false statement. Americans are overwhelmingly against abortion on demand.

I made no false statement. In poll after poll, half of all Americans, or slightly more then half, favor the right of a woman to have an abortion, at her discretion. An even higher amount of people, don't want to see Roe v Wade overturned. If you read my post at RE:#34 and my other comments on this thread, you'd see we're in agreement. As with all polls, the manner in which the questions are couched, more times then not, dictate the type of answers people offer up.

The bottom line is simple. While a vast majority of Americans oppose abortion themselves, most Americans still favor leaving that choice up to the individual woman. I don't like it and you don't like it, but those are the facts.

[Always Right]

"In poll after poll, half of all Americans, or slightly more then half, favor the right of a woman to have an abortion, at her discretion."

See, that's where I think you are wrong. Gallop has done extensive polling over the years and the polling does not agree with your assessment. Whereas about 50% of the people call themselves "pro-choice" when you break it down in what circumstances they favor abortions, most are actually pro-life.

Here's a graph which shows the results of gallops surveys from 1975-2001:

Note that the opinion that abortion should be legal in all circumstances (which would be the case if it were left solely to the discretion of the woman), represents about a quarter of the population. 17% believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases (the extreme position) while another 56% believe that abortion should be Legal only under some circumstances. So there is 73% that believe there are times when abortion should be illegal, and these are Gallop numbers not some pro-life cooked numbers. So once you start adding the exceptions such as life of mother, rape, incest, by a fairly large majority are actually pro-life to some extent although they consider themselves "pro-choice" because they do favor abortions in limited cased.

[cdefreese]

I do not see R v W being overturned. Yes, the partial births will probably be stopped, which is a good first step. But I do hope they will at least limit the powers that 'planned parenthood' has. It is despicable what they get away with.

My daughter is only 3, but I would be outraged if she gets pregnate at 13 by some guy, goes to PP and gets an abortion without my knowledge and without the guy (if an adult) being reported. I truely believe I would tear the building down brick by brick with my bare hands...or at least be arrested trying.

[Servant of the Nine]

Even if Roe vs Wade were overturned, which it should be on constitutional, not moral grounds, that will just put the issue back to the individual states. You can be sure some liberal states will still have abortion on demand. We will just be back to the old system where the wealthy get abortions in hospitals and the poor get them from butchers.

So9

[Lancey Howard]

...by itself, "overturning Roe v. Wade" would do absolutely nothing Wrong. It would give control of Congress and the White House back to the Dems. 75% of the population say they are for "abortion rights". You can't shove something like this down voters throats.

You do see, of course, the irony of your own statement here.

When I said "by itself, overturning Roe v. Wade would do absolutely nothing", I meant in the legal sense, not in the symbolic sense that the scumbags have successfully propagandized the chattering class into viewing it. And indeed, overturning Roe would do nothing - - Planned Parenthood abortion mills would continue uninterrupted unless and until a state "banned" abortion. But if 75% of the population say they are "for abortion rights", then it sure seems unlikely that the state governments (staffed with elected politicians), would want to change anything. Don't you think?