Posted on 11/14/2004 6:37:38 AM PST by GaryL
Abortion didn't get much airtime in the 2004 presidential campaign, but after the votes were counted it didn't take long for the issue to bubble to the surface. The day after the election, Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) called down the wrath of the freshly emboldened right wing of his party, and endangered his ascension to the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, by letting slip that he thought it "unlikely" that nominees to the federal judiciary "who would change the right of a woman to choose" would be approved by the Senate.
Meanwhile, over in the executive branch, President Bush nominated White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general -- in part, Republican insiders told reporters, as a stepping stone to a future Supreme Court appointment, a way to "burnish [Gonzales'] credentials with conservatives" who were leery of his insufficiently hard line on affirmative action and, in particular, abortion.
All of this has played out against the backdrop
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Here's what I said about that article:
If Roe should be overturned, which itself is unlikely, that would mean that each of the fifty states could decided for itself the status of abortion in that particular state. It is unlikely that any state - with the possible exception of Utah - would vote to ban abortion. So it would remain legal in all the states but each state would decide in a democratic fashion the degree of reasonable restrictions to be place on it. The range would be all the way from Mass. and NY which would have unrestricted abortion, as I presume they do now, to states like Alabama where there would be the most restrictions, like a ban on late term abortions, parential notifications, waiting periods, etc. All the other states would fall in somewhere in between.
The point is that each state would decide the issue democratically, through the legislative process, rather than by a federal judicial fiat, as was the case with Roe v. Wade. And that's exactly what liberals can't stand: allowing the people to settle issues in a democratic fashion. On this as in so many other issues, they count on the Supreme Court to do their dirty word for them!
What happens if Roe is overturned?
The Lord will weep tears of joy.
Amen to that, brother, Amen to that.
Me too.
What would stop everyone from going to say...California to get their abortions then? Doesn't seem like the 'states' approach would fix anything.
Amen...this is the greatest tragedy in our nation today.
There will be no drop in the number of unborn children slaughtered, because anyone in a state where their particular abortion is illegal will simply travel to a state where it is, presumably with the help of pro-abortion organizations styling themselves as "underground railroads."
It will fall to states to regulate this monstrous practice. The angels in heaven will sing hymns of joy!!
"What happens if Roe is overturned?" More babies will be born to enjoy their constitutional right to the "pursuit of happiness."
We must make partial birth abortion illegal and have Congress impeach any of the federal judges who continue to allow this barbaric and inhumane practice.
First the evil left has come for the innocent children waiting to be born. Soon it will be you aging baby boomers who will bankrupt Social [In]Security. Finally they will come after you as evil needs massive death to continue functioning. Just reflect on Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, etc.
Travel expenses alone would make it cost prohibitive for many to have abortions elsewhere. I also suspect that insurers would cease covering abortion-related expenses except in states that mandate it. For example, if abortion was illegal in Colorado, a woman from that state would be unlikely to have the disposable funds or insurance to arrange for an abortion in California.
In a perfect world, there would be no abortion. I'll settle for the greatest reduction a.s.a.p. and work on that 100% later.
Not much right away. It will go back to the states and people will start driving over state lines to get abortions.
bread and f***ing roses, indeed.
If it makes it a little bit harder for people to murder their children, it's worth it.
The thing is, it would be easier on a state by state basis to get a referendum on the ballot to overturn abortion, then it would a federal one.
Each state would be free to either accept of deny abortion, that's true.
But a referendum on the ballot would find the path of least resistance to pro-life advocates because they could use the argument that 'no federal authority' grants abortions and that the State of (so and so) has found abortions to be illegal.
My belief is the battle would be easier if Roe v Wade were overturned, and the decision left up to the states.
I would be VERY surprised if states like Louisiana and Mississippi voted to allow even early abortions in cases of convenience.
Answer: The goes back to the states (as the Constitution REQUIRES). Each state will make its own decision. Many if not all will continue to allow abortion.
I agree
The thing that gets me is, Roe v Wade did not grant a 'constitutional right' to abortion.
Only the Federal Legislature can do that.
Not the courts.
What the liberals can't stand is allowing people to make up their own minds through the democratic process. If the "constitutional right to an abortion" wasn't mandated through Roe v. Wade, states would have the right to ban abortions, or permit them, through the legislative process, as it should be. Also, pro-life lobbyists and pro-abortion lobbyists would be free to take their campaign directly to the people in any given state. That's why the liberals are terrified: because with all of the technological developments available (such as ultrasound), pro-lifers can make a compelling and persuasive case for banning this horrendous practice. That is why the liberals are so afraid of having to debate this issue on the merits at the ballot box. They would rather mandate it from on high through the federal court system.
Hopefully, the President will push through his strict constructionist candidates in the next four years. It is past time for this "constitutionally mandated" holocaust to end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.