Dear LauraleeBraswell,
"If Roe V Wade is overturned today, guess what will happen....
"absolutely nothing."
I forgot about that comment. Actually, a lot would happen automatically. All state laws in effect on Jan 21, 1973 proscribing abortion not otherwise repealed since Roe, or otherwise overturned by state courts would go into effect, again. As well, a number of states have passed laws, post-Roe, stating that abortion would be severely restricted therein should Roe be overturned.
I forget the exact number, but the legal abortion regimes in most states would change substantially, and in all states where change occurred, it would be to become more restrictive, ranging from near-total bans to modest restrictions concerning fetal age, etc.
No, overturning Roe would have a significant instantaneous effect. As well, as described in my previous post, it would be the beginning of the next phase of the controversy in the United States.
sitetest
Logic 101! Perhaps that is only a homeschool class! Hehe!
Hello, sitetest,
You complimented my husband earlier, and I see by reading other posts of yours that you are indeed (as I suspected) smart!
Diva Betsy Ross, how nice to see you again!
Since you are both speaking about the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, and with the latest in the news on judicial appointments, complaints, and compromises, I wondered if I might pick your two brains about something I've been mulling over and find out what two smart fellow FReepers think.
If it was judicial activism that created abortion on demand, and judicial activism is wrong inately, as we profess, and if we rightly comndemn (as Constitutionalists) what the Liberals have done to damage our Republic by legislating from the bench, why would we not STOP the judicial activism? Especially considering that the Framers allowed provisions for such an eventuality through review and impeachment?
Why would we instead agree that the playing field the Liberals created is an appropriate one and therefore we will do all we can to get "our guys" on the bench, trusting that "our guys" will overturn the precedent? How many decisions have been handed down since '72 that rely on that one decision? A maze of legal precedent, I would think.
If "our guys" are constructionists, wouldn't they "respect" precedent - much as our Senators have been working so hard to "respect" Senate tradition regardless of its failure to resemble the original design?
And how long would it take to get enough of them on the Supreme Court to do it this way? Are we quaranteed the result if we have the numbers?
And would it be worth it in the end? After all, we would be relying on men, not law, wouldn't we?
Thanks for any time you choose to take on my questions. I'll be back later! God bless.