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 ...
I've held for some time that an overturning of legalized abortion would result in more cross-border medical care and possibly cruise ship care.
Take a cruise, visit a clinic in some nice port, have extra medical care while touring...... I can see that happening.
Nothing. No more then it did prior to Roe v. Wade. When it was legal in California and New York.
And if we outlaw it in all fifty states there is nothing that will prevent them from going to Canada or Mexico. Failing that there is nothing to prevent them from doing the home version.
All it does is say murder of the pre-born is not acceptable. The same way having laws against murder of the post born is not acceptable.
Besides Roe v. Wade is bad law based on a figment of Judiciary imagination. It should go for that reason alone.
The Social Security Fund will deny benefits to anyone that has had an abortion. The theory being; if you destroyed the generation that would pay for your benefits, you should not be able participate.
Oops, hadn't gotten to your post. You're right I think about the cost and insurance. Serial abortions would be cut down dramatically.
Some women have had as many as 12 abortions.
=source 19 years of 'girl talk'
Place marker-respond.
It will force a debate on the practice. Since it is now a constitutional right the pro-abortion people are unwilling to discuss the the issue since they can get courts to prohibit any limits on the practice. WIthout Roe v Wade we anti abortion people can force the debate, get the truth out in the open, and either get some states to outright ban it or to seriously limit the practice. One thing for sure, late term abortions would be illegal.
Really? What makes you say that?
Prior to Roe v Wade in 1973, only four states allowed abortions (Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington). Prior to 1967, no state allowed it.
It could happen that, if 5 or 6 states allowed abortion, the remaining states would feel free to ban it, figuring that its citizens could go to one of the "legal' states.
It's funny that liberals assume that the end of the federalization of abortions will "gut the Republican party" (almost as funny as assuming that it will increase abortions- but that is probably unbeatable for it's silliness).
That is the theory that has guided the Dems' treatment of minorities- keep promising but be careful never give them what they want. That is how they must be kept under control.
Liberals would deny that is their intent, yet transference is such a strong psychological trait that they impute it to the Republican Party.
Doing what they say is not a recipe for disaster for a party. There are always more issues to be addressed.
I can see it now, "Abortion Cruises", Older Men w/11...16 year olds. the hallmark of "this/that" Cruiseline. :(
That is the way it is suppose to be. It is up to the individual state to do the right thing. If we want it changed then it would have to be changed there too. We should not be guilty of the same federal thinking that the other side is guilty of.
The fact is that if the number of abortion providers in a state even drop, the number of abortions will drop. Mark Crutcher made a business analysis between two business.
First, is a machine repair shop. As it is something that's absolutely necessary and people have to go to it, it can afford to be somewhat inconvenient to get to.
The other is an ice cream shop which is more of a luxury and HAS to be in a convenient location for people to use it.
Abortion, Crutcher concluded was more like an ice cream shop, because if an abortion closed, people generally don't travel long distances to get one and added expense (even of the smallest sort) stops people from getting one. One abortionist complained his patient load plummetted when they raised the price $25 to cover an ultrasound.
Also, I would disagree with the person who said every state but Utah would keep abortion legal. I'd expect most of the South, parts of the midwest and Idaho to as well.
How can anyone have the "right" to murder?
That doesnt even make sense does it?
Anyone who does not consider abortion murder needs a reality check.
First of all, abortion will increase because the Blue States will legalize something that was legal before? yeah, right.
Second, I'd say many women don't really want an abortion, they feel like it's an easy way out or they're being pressured by a boyfriend to do it. Without an actual abortion clinic in their area, the pressure would be eliminated to a great extent.
Someone said: "It is unlikely that any state - with the possible exception of Utah - would vote to ban abortion."
That's not true at all. What rank pessimism. The unborn in their mother's wombs deserve far better than that! This past election showed that moral Americans have enough spine to make Roe v. Wade history and it will be through jamming phone lines of legislators that it happens.
The legislature in SD made serious moves to ban abortion in their state not long ago: http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D156118%2526M%253D50011,00.html
Bill Banning Abortion, Defining Life May Pass S.D. Legislature
Written by Michael Foust
PIERRE, S.D. (BP) — A bill that would ban most abortions and would define life as beginning at conception has been introduced in the South Dakota legislature, and it has a legitimate chance of passing.
State Rep. Matt McCaulley, a Republican, has introduced a bill that would define life as beginning when "the ovum is fertilized by the male sperm" and would ban all abortions except those needed to save the mother's life or save a woman who has a "serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."
The bill was introduced on January 22, the 31st anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
"[Abortion] is certainly not an issue that should be resolved by the majority vote of nine people in a place 1,500 miles away from our state's capital," McCaulley told Baptist Press.
If all of the bill's sponsors vote for it – assuming it gets out of committee – it will pass. Thirty-eight of the 70 House members have signed on, as have 18 of the 35 Senate members.
Gov. Mike Rounds, a pro-life Republican, has not decided whether he would sign it, the Associated Press reported. But if it becomes law, a court challenge almost certainly would follow.
McCaulley, who is a member of a North American Baptist church in Sioux Falls, said he's trying to send a message nationally "I'm hoping that pro-life legislators in other states will join with me in passing the same legislation," McCaulley told BP. "… I was four months old when Roe v. Wade was decided, and elected officials have never voted for this. This has been decided by the Supreme Court. It does not reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans."
McCaulley's approach may be a first. The bill asserts that since "neither constitutional law nor Supreme Court decision" has resolved the question of the beginning of life, the South Dakota legislature has the right to answer the question "in light of the best scientific and medical evidence."
The bill then concludes that life begins at conception. South Dakota has a compelling state interest to protect life, the bill asserts, and the due process clause in the state constitution "applies equally to born and unborn human life." Although it describes it in detail, the bill does not contain the word "abortion."
"Our research and research from some other legal experts in the country has shown that indeed this is a new and novel approach to this issue," McCaulley said. "We're trying to frame the whole debate in terms of a [federal] Tenth Amendment argument, and that is that the federal constitution is silent on the issue of abortion, and under the Tenth Amendment this should be reserved to the states to decide and protect our citizens and unborn human life within our jurisdiction as we would see fit."
The bill's exceptions for abortion do not include the emotional and mental health of the mother, he said. It must be a substantial threat of a physical injury, he said. "We still believe that's life, but we're not going to criminalize that if it comes down to a family choosing between having the mother be paralyzed in a coma for the rest of her life or having a baby," he said.
Politically, South Dakota is diverse. While the majority of the members of the state House and Senate are Republicans and its governor is a Republican, its two senators in Washington are Democrats: Tom Daschle, the minority leader, and Tim Johnson.
But the bill has bi-partisan support, McCaulley said. He added that South Dakota is a pro-life state. "My fundamental belief is that under our system of democracy we regulate through legislation, not litigation," he said. "I refuse to take a moral issue and say that these important moral issues – where the federal constitution is silent – should be decided by judges and trial lawyers. In my opinion, it should be left up to the elected representatives of the people."
The bill is currently in a House committee, where 10 of the 13 committee members are sponsors, McCaulley said.
The complete text of the bill can be read on the Internet at: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2004/bills/HB1191p.htm.
I don't think anyone does. The poll data (in the article) suggests that there has been virtually no change in the right to choice over the past 30 years, comparing Gallup's pre-Roe poll showing 64 per cent (for a woman's right for the decision to be between her and her doctor) and last year's poll showing that 66 per cent said that abortion should be generally legal in the first trimester.
This is a long way from being resolved at any level of government regardless of laws, restrictions or amendments. The border is not that far away anymore. Taking a trip to another state these days is no more of a problem than taking a couple of days off work.
The first hard question that needs to be answered is how many more lives will be saved if Roe is reversed? And the reverse of that is how many more lives will be lost?
The linked article should be looked at pretty closely and read in its entirety to understand the parameters of the argument and the possible consequences of any decision.
Actually, that is where the discussion should be made.
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.