Replies

I don't agree with that. Before Roe v Wade there were plenty of states that outlawed abortion, and we didn't need a "federal law" to state that. IOW, the States, before Roe v Wade, didn't need "affirmation" from the Feds. The same would be true if Roe v Wade were overturned, or at least severely curtailed. Like I said, there would probably still be some states where abortion would still be legal, but at least it wouldn't be the entire country, which is a step in the right direction. Again, it would at least make it easier to combat abortion on the state level.

You're ignoring the glaring fact that the pro-choice majority will be galvanized by such an event. Right now, they can rest on their laurels, since the Supreme Court is guaranteeing the right to have an abortion. But once Roe is overturned, they will actually have to fight for their abortion rights.

Just a wild guess: I think that several states will outlaw abortion completly, 15-25 states will enact more restrictions on the practice, and that the backlash will cause the rest of the states to elect a pro-choice majority that will retain generally available abortions, or even abolish restrictions on the practice.

I'm not sure what amendment you are refering to here, that the Court should "ignore". However, as far as states passing constitutional amendments permitting abortion, I seriously doubt that would happen in too many states, but where it would, since those number of states would be even less than states that would simply permit abortion by law, it would then be even easier to confine abortion to even fewer states.

Some person on this thread said that the Supreme Court should legislate from the bench and just outlaw abortion. I responded by asking what it should do if the Congress & the state pass a fed. constitutional amendment allowing abortion. Should they ignore that amendment too?

By the way, I believe Maryland has encoded Roe v. Wade and a parental notification law in its constitution.

The rest of your story is rather fanciful. I don't see how you make the leap from 50 states allowing abortion, to 50%, to 2 or 3 states. I believe you made a mistake in believing that only the states putting Roe in their constitution would ultimately still allow abortion.

Just a wild guess: I think that several states will outlaw abortion completly, 15-25 states will enact more restrictions on the practice, and that the backlash will cause the rest of the states to elect a pro-choice majority that will retain generally available abortions, or even abolish restrictions on the practice.

Could be. The pro-abortion states could hardly get any more pro-abortion than they already are though they might codify the right for even girls as young as 10 to get abortions secretly without parental notification, probably through the school system. In states where abortion was outlawed or restricted, groups like NARAL would set up bus service to transport women from states where it is outlawed or heavily restricted to states where it is legal. They'd have to be careful if they transported a minor across state lines. In any event, given the geography of the anti-abortion and pro-abortion states, a woman wanting an abortion would probably never have to travel more than 500 miles.

Personally, I think you'd find that no states would outlaw it in the first trimester. I don't think they'd be as wiling to grant rape and incest exceptions after the first trimester since that is so phony to begin with in the modern era.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. You seem to believe that the majority of this country believes abortion is "ok", I do not. This is where I get my "fanciful" projection, from my belief that the majority of my fellow countrymen believe as I do, that abortion is an inherently evil act, and, at the very least, would not fight to KEEP it legal, should their state be given the ability to decide for itself.