Currently, Roe permits no restrictions of abortion.
Not true. Read the courts opinion. States can regulate late term abortion to protect the rights of the baby.
[The Roe decision also stopped States from prosecuting only ~early term~ abortions as murder.]
Peterson was just convicted in CA of [late term] murder of an unborn baby.
Obviously, you have little regard for the truth of this issue, s-test. Why is that?
You need to read what I wrote before responding to it. States may permit the prosecution of folks OTHER THAN THE MOTHER who harm unborn children.
Specious claim. States have always had the power to prosecute criminal acts.
Are you really this illogical?
What I said was, "Currently, Roe permits no restrictions of abortion." I will expand, if you did not catch my meaning, "Roe permits no real restrictions on induced abortions procured by the mother."
That is not true. States can 'really' regulate late term abortion. Read the court opinion.
What Mr. Peterson did does not fall under "abortion procured by the mother."
Gee, who would have guessed..
In fact, in approving the most mild regulation of abortion (parental notification with judicial bypass, minor waiting periods, etc.), Justice O'Connor has pointed out that any regulation that had the effect of actually denying a woman of any abortion at any time during pregnancy would not pass Roe's scrutiny. sitetest.
Justice O'Connors opinions can be challenged by any State. Feel free to get your State to do so.
sitetest rebuts:
"States can regulate late term abortion to protect the rights of the baby."
So long as it doesn't prevent a woman from procuring an abortion. A distinction without a difference. The ultimate fig leaf of semantics.
That's it? You answer all my arguments above with a bit of 'semantic' bull?
Typical. -- You spout off reams of quasi-legal BS in nearly every post, but when factually challenged you cave.
Whatta joke.
sitetest relies with another qausi legal opinion:
I don't think any of your posts demonstrate that any Supreme Court decision from Roe on prevents any woman from seeking and procuring an abortion at any time during her pregnancy. The Court has permitted a few inconveniences. But no abortions are forbidden, even a partial birth abortion at term.
Do you have a point that rebuts any of mine above?
-- The fact remains.
States can 'really' regulate late term abortion. Read the court opinion.
Dear tpaine,
"Do you have a point that rebuts any of mine above?"
Uh..., you haven't yet made a point, tpaine. The Supreme Court has held that Roe and its subsequent related cases do not permit the federal or state governments to prevent any woman from procuring an abortion at any time during pregnancy.
If you wish to make a point, please point out to me where the Supreme Court has upheld any law that prevents women from procuring abortions during pregnancy.
If, by the "opinion," you mean Roe, you should know that between it and the accompanying decision, Doe, that although Roe theoretically permits regulation in the third trimester, 1) Doe (and subsequent related cases) holds that a woman may procure a third trimester abortion nonetheless, for pretty much any reason, so long as it is called a "health" reason, and 2) subsequent Supreme Court cases further interpreting Roe have not permitted any state at all, or the federal govt, to prevent women from terminating pregnancies at any time during pregnancy. Thus, although the language of Roe talks about regulation in the third trimester, it doesn't rise to the level of window dressing, as the words are, for the past 31 years, without effect.
Distinctions without differences.
If you object to my use of the shorthand, "Roe" to mean the body of decisions by the Supreme Court starting with Roe vs. Wade, running through the last 30+ years, just say so.
But frankly, if the Supreme Court were to, let's say, strike down Doe vs. Bolton, and strike down Casey, and strike down the Nebraska decision, and actually permit, let's say, the states to more or less ban third trimester abortions, as an example, then it would be fairly thought to have gutted "Roe."
Now, practically speaking, I'm not sure that you're going to find anyone who is willing to strike down so much of the case law that has built up around Roe who is not also going to overturn the seminal decision, especially as the Justices who have voted in the majority in the subsequent decisions have done so because they have reasoned (along with the entirety of the pro-abort universe, ranging from NOW to NARAL to People for the American Way) that to do otherwise would be to fatally undermine the original decision.
So, you couldn't abide by your word about giving me the last word, huh?
sitetest