|
What Happens If Roe V. Wade Is Overturned?
(selected excerpts, followed by my comments)Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., seemed clueless on the issue. "Meet the Press's" Tim Russert flummoxed the senator when Russert asked, "What would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned?" McCain's response? "I don't know. I don't know what would happen because I don't think it's going to be..." USA Today conducted a state-by-state analysis. Their analysis expects 11 "conservative states" to immediately pass laws prohibiting abortion. But those "conservative states" only had 122 abortion providers in 2000, less than 7 percent of the nation's 1,819 abortion providers... Right now, while abortion still exists in its "legal" form, those opposed to abortion have effectively eliminated "safety" across much of the country that frowns on abortion. That is, those doctors who perform abortions are generally a bad lot, eccentric at best and incompetant butchers at worst. In addition, there is a clear and proportional relationship between widespread abortion and, after a 16-17 year interval, a significant drop in the major violent crimes rate. Several academic statistical studies have established this as fact. Neither the "pro life" or "pro choice" sides has made much mention of these studies, as they have an obvious taint of eugenics about them, to the pro-choicers, and the breeding of a vicious criminal class as the reward for forcing life on unwanted children, to the pro-lifers. So does it come down to different social policies between the "red and blue" states? It would appear that through the natural evolution of Roe v. Wade, that is the position that has been adopted: widespread abortion availability in blue states and effective curtailment in many of the red states, with "purple" states varying one way or another. In the absence of Roe v. Wade, the abrogation of the primary federal policy, this status quo remains. The battle over abortion returns to the US congress as both sides fight pitched battles to force their will on the "other" half of the country. But is this any different than how things are now? Unless anti-abortion states force pregnant women to stay home, they can with some small expense travel to where abortion is legal. If this is the case, funds will be raised to help them do so. So in the final analysis, 'Roe' is an imbalance in a predominantly red state country. As such, it has real prospects to be overturned, but the end result will most likely be just screaming, rather than any tangible change. Ironically, as its rationale for 'Roe' is the often quoted "right to privacy", a "right" severely trampled on since it was first asserted by the SCOTUS. The question, that if 'Roe' is overturned, do Americans have *any* "right to privacy" is a very serious and contemporary one. Privacy issues have become enormously important across our social and legal spectrum. So will the SCOTUS, in their opinion overturning 'Roe', offer any support at all to the promulgation of privacy as a constitutional right? That could prove to be an equally divisive issue. Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-08-18 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=127130 |