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

[preciousjeni]

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.

[LexiKD]

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!

[preciousjeni]

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

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by LexiKD
The only way to even overturn the case is that someone original from the case has to present it.

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).

[LexiKD]

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?

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by LexiKD
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

[GeekyPenguin]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin

The Constitution says nothing about abortion, just ask Nino.

. . . 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.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by KSig RC
. . . 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.

[RUgreek]

Originally posted by KSig RC
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.

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...

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
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.

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

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).

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?

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
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.

[RUgreek]

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
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?

mini-hijack....

I still think Scott Peterson was innocent...

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

[Peaches-n-Cream]

Originally posted by KSig RC
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.

I thought that second trimester abortions were legal.