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!
I would like to say the killing would stop, but I'm not so sure it would.
5.56mm
It would be a small step in the right direction. It would have little practical effect, since most states have statutes on the books allowing for abortions. The only way to stop most legalized abortions would be a constitutional amendment determining that life begins either at conception or at the first heartbeat (a reasonable compromise, IMO).
If Roe is overturned, the Blue states will continue butchering the unborn and my hunch is the red states will stop.
Already here in Nashville, there are now I think only one of two places to kill your baby legally left.
In the mid 80s, there were over a dozen.
AND CONTRARY TO THE OPINIONS OF A FEW HERE:
It is wrong to say abortion had nothing to do with this election...it was absolutely in some degree one of the reasons for voting for either candidate.
Life has worth once again, liberals are committing suicide enmasse and babies are not murdered anymore!
We'll never know.
Exactly - if things were left up to the states, I have consistently said that I didn't think any states would outright ban the practice, and the limitations put on abortion would be fairly tame ones (by the conservative perspective in 2004 standards): parental notificiation, partial birth abortion ban, etc.
1.4 million women have abortions a year - they aren't going anywhere soon. To expect that the number would be dramatically decreased as a result of overturning Roe is just silly, in my book.
We can't do it state by state .. because we end up with issues like in CA where the public has voted for a referrendom - only to have it overturned by some stinking liberal judge. This is a direct violation of the Constitution - it's overturning an election - the voice of the people.
Unless Roe v. Wade is changed FEDERALLY .. we will continue to have this problem.
I see the same thing happening regarding the gay marriage issue. Although all these states have now passed - by referrendom - laws which outlaw gay marriage - how many liberal judges will be willing to overturn it when confronted with the first lawsuit ..??
Without the FEDERAL amendment establishing marriage as between a man and a woman .. this issue will always be tenuous as a state law - which district or federal judges can easily overturn.