"That works out to perhaps around 20% - 25% of women"
So you believe that 1 in 4 women has had an abortion and yet most of society wants to make abortion illegal.
That's quite possible, but it seems like if 1 out of every 8 people has had an abortion that there are quite a few more that support their ability to make that choice. Either way now that Republicans control the house, senate, presidency and most of the supreme court they ought to be passing the bill any minute now.
Wait...why havent they? Oh thats right, their political careers are on the line and they don't really have the convictions to actually go through with it. They know it would mobilize way too many people who have grown up with a woman's right to have an abortion and their butts would be out the door the next election cycle.
Dear Clorinox,
I assume you meant this post for me.
"That's quite possible, but it seems like if 1 out of every 8 people has had an abortion that there are quite a few more that support their ability to make that choice."
Yes, indeed. About a third of the population supports a much broader abortion license than the one I described.
As to changing the law, unfortunately, it can't really be done through the usual means. Seven jackasses ruled, in 1973, that the nation's laws against abortion were all unconstitutional, and that was that!
It may surprise you, but if Roe were overturned, and the state versions of the black-robed jackasses in Washington did not intervene (the state courts), abortion would be very much more restricted, instantly.
Sixteen states still have near-total abortion bans on the books that were never repealed. Another 11 or so have laws on the books that say, should Roe be reversed, anti-abortion laws would immediately go into effect. That's over half the states right there.
Forty states have heavy restrictions on post-viability abortions (which, of course, inch closer and closer toward conception as technology improves).
But none of these laws may have effect because of Roe v. Wade.
As for changing the court, well, Kennedy was elevated to the court and started out as pro-life. He changed. Souter was suspected to be pro-life. We were wrong. In fact, in Casey, both seemed to suggest that Roe was wrongly decided! But that it was too late to overturn Roe, because the abortion license was too firmly planted in the nation's way of life.
I doubt that if Roe were argued today, you could get a majority of the Supreme Court to decide as it did in 1973.
As for passing a constitutional amendment, that's a very tough road to hoe, even if most people support it. It requires a bit more than, say, a 2/3 majority sentiment in the country. As well, not everyone who thinks Roe ought to be overturned, and the question returned to the states, and abortion should be severely restricted, would agree that federal action is appropriate. Although I disagree, ultimately, with that analysis, nonetheless, traditionally this sort of legislation has been properly the province of the individual states.
As for Congress taking the question away from the federal courts, that's a nice idea in theory, but politicians are timid to do what has seldom been done.
sitetest