Posted on 11/14/2007 11:47:49 AM PST by shrinkermd
No, the “majority” probably won’t.
How many states is abortion outlawed or restricted in now?
ZERO.
How many states would it be restricted in following overturning RvW - MORE THAN ZERO.
Do you understand this math?
Also, the laws would once again be in the hands of elected reps at the state level, or even in the hands of the people themselves in states with initiative in their Constitutions. I think you’d be surprised at the true sentiment out there - the pro-aborts are lying.
Get 3/4 of the states with restrictions, THEN go for the amendment.
Nope, just those found in the “emanations of the penumbra” of various and combined articles of the bill of rights,
ie, the hallucinations of tyrants in robes seeking a certain social outcome can be overturned by the will of the people.
No, that’s not my view. My view is that abortion is indefensible, and if abortionists were put where they had to defend it, they would lose, and their party would suffer horribly.
Having abortion decided in the courts the way it has been since 1973 has hampered the debate. Abortionists have had their way without having to defend death, so they haven’t paid the cost that their view would most definitely cost them. If R v W were overturned, the matter would go back to the polititians. If they wanted to kill babies, they would have to defend it. IMO after a while, abortion would become so repugnant, it would be easy to amend the constitution to outlaw it if that was needed. But also IMO it wouldn’t be needed. Current laws against killing innocent human beings would be interpreted in favor of the unborn just as surely as they apply to those who have been born.
After Roe is overturned, and the matter goes back to the states, there will be the opportunity to bring this issue directly to the people for as many restrictions as they care to apply. There will be some states that will allow it, but even in places like CA, NY and NJ, there will likely be restrictions placed on it, because voters and legislatures won't have to worry about them being overturned under the auspices of the 'precedent' of Roe. When it becomes front and center with voters, that will be the perfect time to work on winning hearts and minds to help save as many babies as possible. Who knows, within a generation, we may even have enough hearts and minds to get that HLA.
Seeing as how this issue has been so divisive over the last 35 years, but most people haven't ever been given a chance to vote on it, just having them do that will at least force them to give it some real thought. Now, they may still make the calculation to allow abortions in the first trimester, but many won't. Either way, the result will be FAR fewer abortions than are performed today, and the regular guy on the street will have to think about it whereas now, since it's completely out of his hands, he doesn't.
The legislation that Fred wants passed to keep Judges from thwarting the will of the people. Works in the case of abortion, AND homosexual 'marriage'.
Totally agree RvW has got to be taken out of the courts and let the American public decide once and for all where we stand. IMO Abortion would be a no longer be a campaign issue.
This would mean that the focus of the fight would change, too....actually having to change peoples' hearts and minds about this instead of just playing legal games. To me, that's a win.
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.