Posted on 11/06/2005 10:21:13 AM PST by Libloather
State Battles Likely if Roe Overturned
By DAVID CRARY, Associated Press Writer
Sat Nov 5,11:56 PM ET
NEW YORK - Undoubtedly, there would be tumult — likely roiling every statehouse in the nation. Beyond that, little is certain about what would unfold if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the divisive 1973 decision establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.
Reversal remains only a hypothesis for now, yet both sides in the abortion debate are discussing the demise of Roe as an increasingly serious possibility. President Bush's nomination of conservative Samuel Alito to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor heightens the prospect of tighter restrictions on abortion, and another vacancy could occur any time that might tip the balance on Roe itself.
Roe's reversal would not outlaw abortion nationwide; the issue would revert to the states, with patchwork consequences. Some states would likely ban almost all abortions, others would allow them to continue unfettered, and a middle group might impose restrictions that would make abortions harder to obtain.
If the pre-Roe past is any guide, affluent women in states with bans would likely find ways to have safe abortions, either traveling to a no-ban state or hiring a doctor willing to flout the law. Abortion-rights activists say poor women would have fewer recourses; some might resort to using cheap, widely available abortion-inducing medicines that didn't exist before Roe.
"What an appalling thought — American women reduced to going outside the health care system and acting like they're in a Third World country," said Dr. Wendy Chavkin, a Columbia University professor who chairs Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.
The political consequences of Roe's reversal would be complex — and perhaps awkward for some Republicans. Roe has been a longtime target of conservative candidates and advocacy groups; its disappearance would shift the battleground to state legislatures where the actual banning of abortion might trouble some swing voters.
"I'm sure there are some Republicans who'd prefer not to deal with it," said Bill Saunders, a bioethics expert with the conservative Family Research Council. "Sometimes politicians like to slough off issues to Supreme Court, and criticize the court and not have to deal with it themselves."
Some anti-abortion groups seek to minimize the immediate impact of Roe's reversal, suggesting that abortion initially would remain legal in all but six or seven states with pre-Roe bans still on the books.
In contrast, the Center for Reproductive Rights says abortion access would be at high risk in 21 states, notably in the Southeast and Great Plains.
The center's president, Nancy Northup, noted that South Dakota lawmakers passed a bill this year that would automatically outlaw most abortions if Roe were overturned.
In some heartland states, however, moves to ban abortion could trigger political free-for-alls.
"I don't know what's going to happen — except it's going to get ugly," said Susan Hays, a Dallas attorney who has defended abortion rights in Texas courts.
Peter Brownlie, executive director of a Planned Parenthood branch serving Kansas and Missouri, said most voters even in those conservative states support some abortion rights.
"It's interesting to speculate what kind of backlash might occur if Roe were overturned," Brownlie said. "I suspect a lot of people who've been on the sidelines would bring pressure on their political representatives not to take draconian steps."
"You could call it a patchwork, but it's democracy in action," said attorney Clarke Forsythe of Americans United for Life. "The two or three or four sides of the issue would duke it out, and at the end of the day the legislature votes. Public opinion would be better reflected in public policy."
Forsythe predicts that only a few states would ban most abortions or allow them virtually unrestricted. The rest, he said, would form a middle ground, imposing restrictions that would reduce U.S. abortions from the current level of nearly 1.3 million annually.
Restrictions might include banning abortions after the first trimester, narrowing the grounds on which women can get late-term abortions for health reasons, and tightening parental-involvement laws that many states already use to curtail minors' abortions.
Some anti-abortion activists aren't clamoring for reversal of Roe because of the probability that many states — including New York and California — would still allow abortions. Hard-liners instead want a federal Human Life Amendment criminalizing all abortions; such a measure would need two-thirds support in the House and Senate, then ratification by 38 state legislatures.
"That's not a realistic scenario," Forsythe said.
Although abortion-rights leaders believe most women would retain access to abortions after Roe's reversal, they worry that new bans and laws would dangerously narrow the options for poor women and teenage girls. "We'd return to women being maimed and killed by resorting to self-abortion and illegal abortion," Brownlie said.
Chavkin, the Columbia professor, said the so-called back-alley abortions of the pre-Roe era might be replaced by self-performed abortions using the readily available drug misoprostol.
Approved since 1988 to treat ulcers, misoprostol is one of two drugs that make up the so-called abortion pill. Chavkin said it can end a pregnancy when used alone, but with a higher complication rate and lower success rate than when used with the other drug, mifepristone.
Misoprostol's availability means abortion would remain a viable, though risky, option even in states that imposed post-Roe bans, Chavkin said.
"The Pandora's box is open," she said. "The anti-abortion forces can make life harsh, they can harass people and make them feel crummy. But they can't stop this. On some level they've lost already."
As if its been a bed of roses so far. They're freakin' out before anything happens. Let the games begin.
"As if its been a bed of roses so far."
Too true. In the 30+ years Roe has been in effect, it's had a constant and polarizing effect on everyone. The states is where this issue belongs. After all, murder is a state issue, not a federal issue.
it violates the 10th amendment.
period.
This article would have been unthinkable 15 years ago, when there was much more public support for legal abortion. The fact that people are talking about this as a possible outcome is a good sign.
If the Supers can re-write the Constitution without a Constitutional Congress (The Connecticut decision to allow the taking of private property for the good of the State ...), then the increments that have already been 'established' must be dis-established.
President Bush will become known as the greatest President we've ever had for his efforts and (I pray) success in saving the Union.
Self-determination may be coming. What a concept, the people actually deciding issues instead of the Gang of 9.
Who can be against self-determination? Aren't the pro-aborts pro-choice? Well then let the states have a choice!!!!
The left knows that, when Stevens and Ginsburg retire, if there is a Republican president, they will have RvW overturned, 'cause the president will nominate strict constructionists.
I'm no doubt a minority among Republicans, but if my 15 year old daughter came to me crying and said she was pregnant I wouldn't want her only legal option to be to have the baby. And I expect there are a lot of supposedly "pro-life" Republicans who wouldn't pass the "15 year old daughter" test. They will promise up and down that they would pass the test, but in the secrecy of their own home they would slip off to have the abortion. It happens all the time I suspect- pro-life people getting abortions for their daughters. I personally know of a couple of examples.
Then on behalf of your grandchild, I pray to the Lord Jesus Christ that you & your daughter have no option to get your grandchild shredded to death.
That option has always existed and will always exist. In the old days it was Cuba and the Bahamas. In the future it will be New York and California etc. The downside is that it breaks down by ability to pay.
Overturning Roe is just the first step. If we leave it up to the states, abortion will never end in places like Mass and NY. We need to work toward a national law.
That is exactly what ROEvWADE is and the ruling was fabricated out of whole cloth. The Roe V Wade decision is one of the most damaging things that ever happened to our Constitution. They made a law without any basis. They used the excuse of "right to privacy" to fabricate this law. A national law outlawing abortion would be just as unconstitutional as Roe v Wade is. We must not further damage this great document. The abortion issue is an issue that must be left up to the individual states.
Oh the horror, it would actually lob this issue at the states where the founders intended it.
If you would truly follow through with your statements and make sure your daughter had the baby, you very likely have a morally superior position to myself. I don't know whether you would follow through or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you would.
But for many, many parents, protecting their children's future trumps everything else. My opinion is that having a baby at 15 would go a long ways to ensuring that my daughter would be less likely to get a college education and "college experience," find a good husband, and generally live a normal life.
I don't pretend to be the most moral person in the world, but I do know that for me and most people, my children's future is everything. I also that many people use a nominally pro-life position so that they can FEEL moral, and then they don't follow up on their supposed morality when the reality of a young daughter with a baby is staring them in the face. I have no way of knowing from your post on a message board whether that applies to you or not.
In 1989-90, it was a given that we had lost the abortion debate. When Bill Clinton was elected, all hope was believed to be lost.
Yet here we are, with the MSM for the first time putting the best face on the coming reversal of their pet Supreme Court ruling. As you say, this is huge. In some ways, they are admitting that defeat is inevitable.
As opposed to just an innocent baby being "maimed and killed." Abortions are an important tool in the Liberals' "sexual revolution." They need an easy way to get rid of the evidence and child support payments when they get some young teenager knocked up.
The overturning of Roe V Wade is inevitable on the state level. What is less clear is how States that outlaw abortions will deal with the sudden rise/spike in population of the poor. It will require an entire revamping of social services, adoption law, child support laws, etc. These are issues that is key, yet never discussed.
From what leftist pamphlet did get that?
Conservatives--especially Christian Conservatives--would never "slip off" to have their grandchildren murdered. If they did then they are neither Christian nor Conservative.
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.