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.
I have no idea where your figures come from…but all I can do is show you stuff like this, which is typical of polls addressing Roe:
Sixty-six percent say Roe v. Wade should not be completely struck down, and 59% would support Congress passing legislation to establish a nationwide right to abortion, including 81% of Democrats, 65% of independents and 30% of Republicans, the survey finds.
At worst your numbers show a worse case, and still more Americans support Roe than oppose it. You may not like it, but that is the state of public opinion.
We find majorities both in favor of abortion and in restricting abortion. What makes the American abortion debate so polarized is that it's become an all or nothing argument. For example, what many don't realize about the Mississippi abortion law is that it actually brings Mississippi in line with standard abortion policies in most of the western/developed world, which does have restrictions on abortion (usually first trimester) and quite often multiple hoops to go through to obtain an abortion. It's one reason why there's so little debate over abortion in these countries, a consensus was established democratically and compromise resulted in abortion with restrictions rather than the all or nothing wars in the US between the prolife and prochoice people.
Alito's brief overturning Roe vs Wade seems written on constitutional grounds, that in fact there is no constitutional protection for abortion. The allusion to one in Roe versus Wade was farcical, which even RBG agreed. It, however, does not rule out abortion being a ballot box issue and states establishing their own abortion laws. That seems to be the future going forward. And because of it, very little will change in real life.
I have no idea where your figures come from…but all I can do is show you stuff like this, which is typical of polls addressing Roe:
Sixty-six percent say Roe v. Wade should not be completely struck down, and 59% would support Congress passing legislation to establish a nationwide right to abortion, including 81% of Democrats, 65% of independents and 30% of Republicans, the survey finds.
At worst your numbers show a worse case, and still more Americans support Roe than oppose it. You may not like it, but that is the state of public opinion.
Like I said, when Americans are polled on the REASON for an abortion, when it comes to the 98.3% of abortions that are performed for the sake of convenience:
48% keep it legal
45% make it illegal
ABC/WaPo Poll
And THIS is why major corporations are NOT chiming in on either side.
A valid case was made that a Constitutional Right was violated. That's why SCOTUS took up the Knick case.
In the cases of women convicted of harming their babies in utero, the women's Constitutional Rights weren't violated so SCOTUS declined to hear the cases.
How is that case analogous to the current scenario when you admit that the “women's Constitutional Rights weren't violated”?
Apparently she is all in for judicial activism on the Supreme Court if it goes along with her idiosyncratic interpretations.
How is abiding by the US Constitution "judicial activism?" The Justices are doing what they've sworn to do in their oaths: support and defend the US Constitution.
Even RBG knew the 1973 Roe ruling had an inadequate Constitutional basis.
I have yet to see one pro abortion poster supply ANY statistics regarding the frequency of the bolded situation.
Not. One.
Wonder why. Perhaps because it is so incredibly rare as to be statistically insignificant? One would think they would be screeching those numbers to every chance they could to bolster their justification for abortion.
Yet ... Not. One. Statistic.
In your perfect world where no abortion is allowed, ever, what happens in that rare instance when a pregnant woman has pre-eclampsia or another serious condition that can only be solved by ending the pregnancy or by letting both mother and fetus die? What do you do for her if abortion is not available anymore?
How is that case analogous to the current scenario when you admit that the “women's Constitutional Rights weren't violated”?
Why would SCOTUS take up a case in which no one's Constitutional Rights were violated? They wouldn't. And didn't. The women were charged with and convicted of harming their own children in utero. Child neglect, abuse, murder, etc., is a crime. What confuses you about that?
Why would SCOTUS take up a case in which no one's Constitutional Rights were violated? They wouldn't. And didn't. The women were charged with and convicted of harming their own children in utero. Child neglect, abuse, murder, etc., is a crime. What confuses you about that?
I thought you realized there was a difference between a state’s Supreme Court & the Supreme Court of the United States?
Your own link states the “To date, the United States Supreme Court has declined to hear cases that raise questions about the constitutionality of such laws.”
I thought you realized there was a difference between a state’s Supreme Court & the Supreme Court of the United States?
I do, but it sounds like you don't understand the difference.
Quote:
Your own link states the “To date, the United States Supreme Court has declined to hear cases that raise questions about the constitutionality of such laws.”
How is abiding by the US Constitution "judicial activism?" The Justices are doing what they've sworn to do in their oaths: support and defend the US Constitution.
Even RBG knew the 1973 Roe ruling had an inadequate Constitutional basis.
It was judicial activism when the SCOTUS ruled on Plessy v. Ferguson enabling & empowering the states to create & enforce Jim Crow laws.
The present SCOTUS does the same by shirking its responsibility to interpret the Constitution by giving it to the states to decide.
Shirking a responsibility is not “supporting & defending the Constitution”.
Shirking its responsibility in Plessy is one of the contributing factors that ultimately led to the American Civil War.
Justice Alito is employing the same airquote ‘logic’ of Plessy v. Ferguson by allowing the states to violate the individual rights of their people in any way their legislatures deem airquote ‘reasonable’ as the opinion put it in Plessy.
To “reasonably violate an individual’s right” is an oxymoronic statement.
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.
