Roe v. Wade - What's happening now??
 

Coming up on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade case, I thought it would be interesting for you all to learn about this (if you didn't already know). It's news to me!!!

http://www.pregnantpause.org/people/roe.htm

Roe is pro-life!!!!!! What????

--BTW, there are other sources, but I just listed this one.

The only way to even overturn the case is that someone original from the case has to present it. I don't think it will happen b/c it was passed for a reason of saftey and although many women have been hurt after the procedure there are many that have been helped but it would be harder to find women to speak up that supported their decision to abort, I think.
Don't get me wrong anything after first trimeseter grosses me out and don't get me started on partial birth....but there are many situations that I understand why they are needed but as birth control is not one of them!

Oh I wouldn't think it would be overturned. It's just interesting to see what has happened since.

You're being too literal here. The case can effectively be 'overturned' in the sense of judicial review by simply ruling differently on a new case, or by upholding a congressional amendment to ban abortion, or etc etc etc.


That said - I think people see monsters under the bed with abortion, as I can't imagine a situation in which the Supreme Court would want to rule on this (similar to gay marriage issues).

She took it to the SCourt Tuesday and has begun the process of review. Also has a website somewhere to help support the project.
why is no one but us interested in this?

Are you talking about this:

http://www.roenomore.org/core.htm

Oh, I'm very interested in it. You can see my signature for more interest.

The Constitution says nothing about abortion, just ask Nino.

And most people have known about Roe's position change for quite some time...there was an article on it in Reader's Digest sometime around the second Clinton administration.

. . . and if it were that simple, it would have never been brought to the Court in the first place.

You know that the issues involved are really those of when we can legally define a fetus as a 'human life' and thus a protected person under the law, and whether or not a literal, physical dependent being (such as a fetus that cannot exist outside of the womb) is subject to the desires of the provider (ie the mother).

Related issues stretch deep; for instance, if the fetus is dependent b/c it cannot exist on its own, is a 6-month-old similarly dependent? It can't exist by itself, without an adult . . . this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion per se, but a ruling would be borderline impossible.

This sort of situation was never really envisioned when any of the process was detailed, so really it's a total washout in terms of decision making. For that reason, I don't think we'll ever see a Court touch it even tangentially.

I know Rob, I was just being a punk but you continue to point out that the GC masses won't get it. I don't think the Court will touch it either unless Bush tries to force more legislation on us.

Absolutely right. Original parties have no control in the issues once a case is decided. The fact that Roe has switched from pro-choice to pro-life is irrelevant. It is a legal issue not a factual one for the courts or legislatures to decide.

I remember watching an interview with Roe and Wade a few years back, and was also surprised to hear about her 180 shift.

As far as the new appointments to the Supreme court go, Roe won't be overturned despite what the media would like you to think. Replacing a conservative retiring justice with another doesn't swing any votes (Rehnquist and O'Connor are looking ripe).

And with the control of the senate and house, it will still take a lot of effort to pass a law against abortion, not to mention the fact that it could run the risk of being deemed unconstitutional later. I consider the abortion issue settled and permanent under the law. Whether you're for or against it, it's going to be around for a while...

word, i knew what you were up to, but as the latest round of parody threads have so fantastically shown . . . people don't get it.

just trying to get some discussion going

If a person can be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman, then how can people say that a a fetus is NOT human life?

specious.




Also - this is simplistic, overly so in fact. No abortions can come after the first trimester, and many states cannot charge someone with murder until after 15 weeks of pregnancy (like in CA).

If other criminal charges are the best argument you have, then you're going to have trouble convincing a court, not to mention the Court.

mini-hijack....

I still think Scott Peterson was innocent...

We now return to our regularly show already in progres....

I thought that second trimester abortions were legal.

I believe that's only if you're not using a baseball bat. I'll have to check the books on that one :)

On a serious aborting note, I think it depends on the state you're in, because now I hear about age requirements and all these strange requirements to cancel a fetus.

I'm for the pro-choice folks - the choice to support or not support abortion rights....

I'm sorry, I have to go there...
 

hijack://

All I got to say is that if Roe v. Wade is overturned for some "homeland security" reason (or whatever--dealing with hypotheticals here), that there will be a whole bunch of nappy headed BeyBey's kids running around without their daddies and their mama's are crazy...

//hijack

I'm surprised that there's anyone out there who doesn't know that Jane Roe is now a pro-life fundie lesbian. She's also a recovering drug addict who never had an abortion.

Actually former lesbian, drug addict and pro-abortion activist.

You mean a pretend heterosexual because some evangelical convinced her to turn away from her natural state?

Gosh golly gee, I can't think of anything more Christian than refusing to accept someone for who they are.

Pretend heterosexual, pretend minority...what's up with the charades?

I don't know. It's sort of like pretend sororities.

http://www.roenomore.org/crossing_over/welcome.html

And to keep this on topic, look at the bottom of that. She's afraid to look Christ in the face. What a loving ministry she much have to be teaching such fear.

What she said and girlfriend your signature friggin ROCKS!

:eek:

I noticed she has a little dislike for "Ivy League feminists." :rolleyes:

I do too, they go to better schools than me. :)

I might get flamed for this hijack, but the title of this thread made me think of the sitcom for a minute.

http://whatshappening.tvheaven.com/rerun.jpg

Come on, doesn't anyone remember Rerun? Anyway, I used to watch What's Happening Now when I was kid, back to abortions :)


RUgreek

i'm confused.....i don't think she's "teaching fear"...... there's nothing wrong in feeling sorry for something you've done that was wrong. it's called remorse. but since you do no wrong, i guess you wouldn't know about that.

That's not what I said. I feel like I need Rudey in here to accuse people of not being able to read.

She said she is ashamed to look God in the face. Now, since she claims to be Catholic now, which happens to be the same religion I've been for the last 1...2...3...21 years, I must have missed the part where God stopped being nice and starting being vengeful.

Well, hardcore Catholics believe you are excommunicated the second you (even unknowningly) help a woman have an abortion. I had one said she can't open a door for a woman on her way to have an abortion because she would be excommunicated for it.

The scary thing is that I've heard priests say similar things. Blah.

That's ridiculous and untrue. Not saying it hasn't happened, but that's not part of Catholic dogma. We like guilt, not fear!

ok, i've been able to read for the past, i dunno, 20 years or so, and i've been a Baptist for the last 1...2....3.....23 years, so you're not the only one with a Christian upbringing. God is not vengeful....but he does require a certain amount of respect. you said she was "teaching fear." i didn't read what she said as "God said i can't look in his face b/c he's a big meanie", but more so like "i feel bad so i won't be able to look him in the face." make sense? if i am unfair or mean to a friend, it's hard for me to look them in the face. not b/c they are scary or vengeful, but b/c i feel bad for what i did. same kinda thing.

so really....maybe someone should accuse you of not being able to read. i would like to think it's just us interpreting things differently, though.

Just because it's not true doesn't mean pro-life zealots won't spout it off to everyone who can hear!

(I tried finding the link she once sent me saying that outlined her belief - i think it was on catholicnet or something - but i did find a lot of links of people arguing over arguing if John Kerry was excommunicated for supporting a woman's right to choose , but he's not)

LOL on the "guilt not fear" quote. My dad says Catholic guilt is the only part of Catholism he gave me.

In the bible it says, "Vengence is MINE saith the Lord" God is a vengeful God, but he's also merciful and loving. It can go hand in hand.

true.

Why is it that if you are pro-life or conservative, or republican or christian, or whatever else, that you are a zealot or nut case or radical or whack job? Just curious.

You'll need to forgive me if that what you think I was implying.
I'm not saying that any of that is true.

I was refering to a very very specific group of people. I can call them zealots if I want. I'm not refering to every pro-lifer, conservative, republican or christian.

No I understand, it's just annoying when people DO clump all those people together and label all of them as those things. Thanks for clarifying!

See, I was always taught (in public school, whooo!) that the above quote was saying not that the Lord is vengeful, but that MAN does not have the right to judge or to be vengeful, that vengeance is the sole purview of a Supreme Being. I've realized

Has anyone read either of Norma McCorvey's autobiographies? In both of them, she comes across as being highly gullible and impressionable. I'm sure both the pro-choice and anti-choice groups were able to win her over quite easily. In fact, in the first book, her dislike for the anti-choice people didn't come so much from their beliefs as much as how they treated her. Also, wasn't her conversion a result of "being shunned" at the Roe anniversary?

I would like to think that it's THE DIVA! getting a touch self-righteous on us again . . . which it is, even though it's endearing. I'm pretty sure GP was referring to the woman's church as teaching fear. Your own personal relationship with God has no place in this thread.

It also has no place in the law, which is why, as a proud American, you should support Roe v. Wade, even if you think abortion is an abomination. Let others sin, and prove your patriotism in the process.

I am a proud American who will NEVER support it.