Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OF course they will try to overturn R&W...its only natural a political party would seek to overturn something it strongly disagrees with that the SC did, ID be more worried if they didnt try!!
What I find ironic is that the Dems are pro choice and 600,000- 800,000 abortions are performed each year.
Gun violence, both robbery, accidents and suicides claims around 100,000 people a year.
The Dems are screaming that Roe V Wade will be overturned ( I highly doubt it) but if Hillary had won the election and was now appointing left leaning anti gun judges then I have no doubt that the Second Amendment would be on the chopping block.
I doubt that Row v Wade will be overturned, the SCOTUS has made it clear that it is a womans right to abortion. The States can enact laws restricting abortions but they can not make laws banning abortions.
Most State have limited abortion to "viability" of the fetus, meaning no abortions can be performed if the fetus can survive outside the womb. Some States have week restrictions that range anywhere from 18 weeks to 25 weeks. Oregon, Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, D.C., New Jersey, New Mexico and Vermont have no restrictions, meaning that an abortion can be performed, for any reason, up until the 9th month.
Row V Wade will stay in place, it's the States rights to limit them within the scope of Row V Wade.
Apparently, there are a lot of R voters out there who don’t know what’s in their own party platform and who never listen to the candidates they vote for.
I think SCOTUS will allow states to sharply limit abortion access. And while that is going on, anti-abortion organizations will be on the lookout for the ‘perfect’ case directly challenging R v W to elevate to the SC.
Some people need to think more carefully about what they wish for. One of the major objections to Roe v Wade was that it found a right of privacy that is nowhere explicitly stated in the Constitution.
I doubt abortion is ever going to be completely illegal. Most people would allow exceptions for rape and the health of the mother. At best you may have a state ban it in all cases except those. But I doubt even that would happen. I just think there will be major restrictions placed on it.
Roe v Wade could be re-jiggered to limit it to medically-necessary abortion (and rape/incest as mentioned above)..that would be a good addendum to case law that was otherwise wrongly decided on the wrong grounds, under the almost-always-incorrect progressive doctrine of "liberal interpretation".
I doubt abortion is ever going to be completely illegal. Most people would allow exceptions for rape and the health of the mother. At best you may have a state ban it in all cases except those. But I doubt even that would happen. I just think there will be major restrictions placed on it.
LOL, so the unborn child has to be sacrificed if it is conceived thru rape?
I can understand when its incest, as that can cause serious problems, but rape...the child produced out of a rape had no say in this, and should not be killed because of it, there are plenty of people who would adopt and give the child a chance.
Again, R vs W is not going anywhere, and if people want to kill their children, that is on their head. It is none of my business, BUT your "logic" is ridiculous here. Nobody is being "forced" to have children even if R vs W were overturned. How about keeping your pants up? Remember when mama taught you that not touching hot stoves would result in not getting burned?
Your logic is the same as this: a man who lost a game of Russian roulette was "forced" to blow his brains out.
(little voice from the back corner: Pssst, hey buddy... pssst... how about if you DON'T spin the cylinder with one chamber out of six loaded with a live cartridge, DON'T put the muzzle against your head, and DON'T pull the trigger???)
How many kids who are told don't touch, it's hot, touch to see for themselves?
The vast majority of states would legalize abortion. There is widespread support for legalized abortion in many if not most incidences. I think 20-weeks is where the cut-off should be for abortion-on-demand to put us in line with other developed countries.
If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, good luck ever getting an abortion in a southern state! That area isn't called the Bible Belt for nothing.
I have no idea what's going to happen in 2020. It's my greatest hope that the young adults will be out in force to vote for the rights that older white Americans seem determined to destroy with glee.
You're so wrong. No southern state will totally ban abortion. This is due to the fact that Mississippi had its chance to ban all abortion by voting in favor of the personhood amendment. It got rejected by a large margin. Ireland ending its ban on abortion also figures in. Also figuring in is the Republican candidate for governor who wanted to end abortion in Oklahoma only placed 4th in the primary. People wanting to end abortion are a small but loud minority.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
