"What If Roe Fell?"

  1. I posted this in current events because this is a POLITICAL discussion and not an ethical one. I have no particular interest in discussing the morality of abortion here. Anybody vested enough to post has their own opinion and it's not going to change.

    But, the politics of Roe are about to become a major issue:

    The Center for Reproductive Rights released a report, What If Roe Fell?

    Full 128 page report:
    http://www.reproductiverights.org/pd...cationPF4a.pdf

    Press release on the report (condensed version):
    http://www.reproductiverights.org/pr...oeReverse.html

    The report claims that 30 States would ban or almost completely ban abortion if Roe fell:

    21 States LIKELY to ban abortion:
    Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

    9 States at Moderate risk for abortion bans:
    Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.

    This should be a State issue, in any case. The beast of Federal gov't never had a right to interfere here and there IS NO Constitutional penumbra for this made up law. It is bad law, primarily because, it wasn't crafted by elected representatives of the people.

    (If you notice, I said nothing about the inherent morality of abortion. Please, if you're going to post, be civil and stay on the issue, and that is the POLITICS and NOT morality of abortion. Thank you in advance.)

    It IS interesting to see that the States are already contemplating the restoration of their rights.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    •  
  2. 62 Comments

  3. by   dria
    are you also in favor of overturing brown vs the board of education? shall we also allow the states to regulate segregation?
    both roe v wade and brown v board of education focus on 14th amendment rights.
    that was written by our elected representatives.
    this has less to do with the states restoring their rights, than preventing them from overstepping their bounds.
  4. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from dria
    are you also in favor of overturing brown vs the board of education? shall we also allow the states to regulate segregation?
    both roe v wade and brown v board of education focus on 14th amendment rights.
    that was written by our elected representatives.
    this has less to do with the states restoring their rights, than preventing them from overstepping their bounds.
    actually, i'm in favor of eliminating the dept of education, altogether. education is not a federal perogative. neither is abortion.

    eliminating the dept of education would save billions, bring local control back to schools, and end the horrid student loan program that has done nothing but inflate the cost of post-secondary education to the point that the average person has to be tens of thousands of dollars in debt to go to college.

    discrimination might be a federal perogative under the 14th. education, isn't. no way you could extend that to roe, either. at least not under a true constitutional lens.

    yes, we should allow the states to regulate segregation. absolutely. the gov't might, under the 14th, have some say in the outcome, but the process is none of the federal gov't's business. the states were intended to be co-equal to washington, and dominant in their sphere of influence. both of these issues, as clearly enunciated in the 10th amendment, belong to the states.

    the states, by definition, cannot overstep boundaries that were constitutionally delegated to the states. no. it is washington that has overstepped its boundaries.

    ~faith,
    timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 8, '07
  5. by   SuesquatchRN
    Timothy, the board of ed is question was Topeka, Kansas. Not the federal.
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Fred Thompson has this right, btw. He is against a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion. It is a State issue.

    This means, if I live in Texas, and I disagree with MD having an abortion law, well, that's none of my business. And if MD disagrees with TX banning most abortions; that's none of its business.

    We do live under a Federalist system and that doesn't mean that the Federal gov't has all power. No. Most powers (ALL POWERS not specifically enumerated to the Federal gov't) belong to the States, or to individuals. That is the design of the Constitution. Don't believe me? Read the 10th Amendment.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  7. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Suesquatch
    Timothy, the board of ed is question was Topeka, Kansas. Not the federal.
    No No. That's not the point. I know that.

    The point is that it was a ruling that the issue comes under a FEDERAL lens. That lens is currently managed by the FEDERAL Dept of Education.

    Decades later, the Bd of Ed of Topeka isn't the problem. The PROBLEM is the Federal Dep't of Education. The problem is the power the ruling gave the Federal gov't by which to meddle in State sovereignty.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 8, '07
  8. by   SuesquatchRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    No No. That's not the point. I know that.

    The point is that it was a ruling that the issue comes under a FEDERAL lens. That lens is currently managed by the FEDERAL Dept of Education.

    Decades later, the Bd of Ed of Topeka isn't the problem. The PROBLEM is the Federal Dep't of Education.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    The Topeka BofE WAS a big, discriminatory problem, and the US Constitution, having been duly amended through our legal process and because of the foresight of our forefathers, addressed this through the 14th amendment, which made all men equal in the eyes of the law. Took a little while to work women into it.
  9. by   mercyteapot
    I can't think of a topic that is a stronger federal perogatives under the 14th Amendment than education (unless it's abortion), but as that's not the thread topic, I'll save my insight about that for another thread.

    The report asks "what if Roe fell?", but in reality, many of the worst case scenarios it presents are de facto realities. Sure, by law a poor black teenager in rural Louisiana is entitled to an abortion. That doesn't mean she has any access to a provider who hasn't been scared away from performing the procedure or to travel funds that would allow her to access the service elsewhere. If Roe falls, it is going to impact different people to different degrees. There aren't loads of providers in PA as it is now, even in the 2 biggest cities. However, proximity to New York, Maryland and West Virginia mean that citizens of that state would have an easier time than citizens of those states located in ban clusters.
  10. by   ZASHAGALKA
    I think Roe WILL fall. It will CERTAINLY fall if Republicans keep the WH in '08. Even so, if Dems take the WH, 2 Supreme Cabal Justices will almost immediatly retire. But, replacing them with liberal justices just maintains the status quo.

    The conservative element of the Court is in place, for probably more than a decade. Only one more vote need be added in the meantime.

    Barring some unforeseen circumstance, in order to save Roe, a Democrat must win the WH in '08, '12 AND '16.

    My prediction: Roe falls before 2020. Probably sooner. POSSIBLY, much sooner (it is still possible the sitting President could get another pick.)

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  11. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Suesquatch
    The Topeka BofE WAS a big, discriminatory problem, and the US Constitution, having been duly amended through our legal process and because of the foresight of our forefathers, addressed this through the 14th amendment, which made all men equal in the eyes of the law. Took a little while to work women into it.
    I said the 14th allowed for addressing discrimination. Re-read what I said. I also said that the process was a State perogative; not a Federal one. The Feds were within their rights to demand a solution and measure its outcome; they were not within their rights to design it.

    I also said that argument doesn't apply to abortion.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  12. by   SuesquatchRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    I said the 14th allowed for addressing discrimination. Re-read what I said. I also said that the process was a State perogative; not a Federal one. The Feds were within their rights to demand a solution and measure its outcome; they were not within their rights to design it.

    I also said that argument doesn't apply to abortion.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Well, a, I don't feel like re-reading it, and b, who the heck are you to tell me what arguments do and don't apply? You want to talk to yourself or have a conversation? If the latter you don't get to set the rules, nor to decide what points do or don't count.

    But I suspect you prefer the former, so I'm out of this alleged discussion.
  13. by   dria
    i completely disagree.
    the crux of the roe v wade decision rests on the due process clause, and establishes abortion as a fundamental right. as a result of the consideration of abortion as a fundamental right, is also an issue of equal protection. i don't think i need to explain this to you...
    ill leave out brown v board of education, has the potential to drag us ot, and it made far more sense when i was first posting than it does now...
    @
  14. by   dria
    Quote from suesquatch
    well, a, i don't feel like re-reading it, and b, who the heck are you to tell me what arguments do and don't apply? you want to talk to yourself or have a conversation? if the latter you don't get to set the rules, nor to decide what points do or don't count.

    but i suspect you prefer the former, so i'm out of this alleged discussion.
    zash-
    and here you were worried about a heated discussion regading the morality of abortion.
    i appear to have created a monster....
    @

close