| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| What Happens If Roe V. Wade Is Overturned? |
| 2005-08-18 |
| (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 |
| #9 What Happens If Roe V. Wade Is Overturned? The winning margin Republicans enjoyed in 2004 would disappear. And I disagree that all women would simply give birth and put babies up for adoption. Some would do this; but some would likely try to abort them themselves (leading to both fetus and mother dying); others would leave them in garbage cans and toilets. We have enough history behind us to understand this, but if that's too removed for folks, all we have to do is look in today's news-we've seen numerous stories of dead fully-developed babies in dumpsters and toilets in states with "no questions asked" infant-drop-off laws. Since time immemorial women have resisted being forced to breed/raise children. Only an understanding of the value of autonomy will frame this correctly. There is no other thing on Earth like pregnancy, so it is impossible to draw an exact analogy. But for those out there who oppose abortion, ask yourselves this: if the government forced you to donate a kidney or a lung (like birth, a physiological change with sometimes lifelong medical repercussions), would that be ok? Itâs all to preserve a life, after all. As many libertarians as I've seen on this site, I doubt you think it would be ok for the government to force you to give up your kidney, force you to give up your autonomy. An overturning of Roe-Vs-Wade and the subsequent outlawing of abortions in some states would amount to governmentally mandated childbirth. The question, the problem emerges at an earlier point than pregnancy-it starts with not living by one's own ideals. If you are pro-life, you must live with all the consequences of your own actions and not shove them off on your sexual partner. You lose your right to protest if your word and deed do not match. If you believe all life is sacred, then you accept lifelong responsibility for your creating it in another, vulnerable human being. If you do not take ownership of both contraception and the risk of contraceptive failure, you accept the possibility of another choosing abortion. A man and a woman are equally culpable in sexual recklessness; women are long past the time when they will accept menâs share of the blame. Conversely, if you are pro-choice, you must define and accept, open-eyed, the consequences of your actions. What are the dictates of your religion? How do you define the beginning of life? If you are Christian, how do you reconcile âthou shalt not killâ and your actions? If this year life is self-sustaining at x number of weeks, but next year, because of medical advances, it is self-sustaining at x-2weeks, how do you ever find a way to reconcile when a fetus is a group of cells and a fetus is a human being? The closest thing we have to a solution is to live by your own morals and stay out of your neighborsâ business. We will all answer to God in the end. All you can do is be true in your relationship to your God. |
| Posted by: jules 2 2005-08-18 23:39 |
| #8 Mrs. D - I am perplexed by your response. Limiting abortion to three states would be a significant change, and, in my view a correct one. You say a plane ticket would cost very little, yet you bring up the "the few poor people from states that make abortion illegal who couldn't afford to get there would end up having a child and putting it up for adoption or raising it." I am sure Planned Parenthood would have a bake sale or something to insure that the killing of infants persists. Otherwise, they go out of business. I am sure glad my grandmother, who raised 13 kids during the Depression, didn't have the abortion "right" available to her at the time. Although, killing infants at that time would have been labeled as such. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-18 23:05 |
| #7 Whats there to overturn - adult women had the right to abortion long before ROE VS WADE. The real issue for me is NON-ADULT, MINOR-AGED WOMEN, aka children, teens or non-legal aged dependents, being allowed to have abortions without so much as Notice andor Consent to their legally adult parents, guardians, or sponsors. ROE,etc. > INFANTICIDE-INDUCED/BASED STATUTORY ADULTHOOD AND STATE SOCIALISM. Survey after survey has shown that most females who have abortions ARE NEITHER MINOR NOR FINANCIALLY STRAPPED. The only thing ROE accomplished was to teach generations of impressionable female youths that they automatically become legal adults once they successfully get themselves pregnant, be it at age 10 to age 17, with all the rights of adults plus the benefits of the State welfare system. Its NOT the dropout, poor teenage girl with the runaway boyfriend(s) whose having most of the abortions in America, because she needs more kids to qualify for State of Federal assistance : its the stable, working adult woman whom can pay for her own abortion, or else has easy access to payment options, thats having the abortions. The Lefties love ROE because its Big Govt, free taxpayer money flowing like a sewer or at the UNO, and false or misleading information, i.e propaganda, ...etal.issues - you know, Left-beloved, Left-alleged "the TRUTH"!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-08-18 22:57 |
| #6 What would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned?" Very little. A plane ticket from anywhere in the US to California, Illinois or New York costs very little. All three would allow all the abortions SCOTUS would allow, including PBA. None of these states would outlaw abortion. So, the few poor people from states that make abortion illegal who couldn't afford to get there would end up having a child and putting it up for adoption or raising it. The question would then shift to SCOTUS being pressured to declare when life begins in an effort to protect the 14th Amendment rights of the unborn. States like California that make it murder for a person (such as Scott Peterson) to kill an unborn child would then have a hard time explaining the difference between abortion and murder. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-18 19:25 |
| #5 What would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned?" Comet hits earth and destroys civilization, moonbats fly to infest a new planet, baby ducks and chicks toasted in place. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-18 19:11 |
| #4 What Happens If Roe V. Wade Is Overturned? More liberals? Somebody explain to me how this is a good thing. |
| Posted by: BH 2005-08-18 19:04 |
| #3 Planed Parenthood is all about eugenics. Check out the founders and the date ot was founded. Eugenics was the mantra of the left eastern elites. My state would still allow abortions. No matter what the Federal government might do. My wife and I planed our Childs birth. We didn't need help to do that. We didn't need governmnet help to do that. But we are educated. Guess who goes to Planed Parenthood people who don't plan to well. Safe, legal and rare. Sounds about rigt to me. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-08-18 18:49 |
| #2 "The battle over abortion returns to the US congress" Wrong!! The fight goes to the individual states, where it belongs. Let the majority of citizens of each state, decide for themselves. Yes, you've guessed it, majority rules or |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-18 18:38 |
| #1 "What would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned?" I'm going to hazard a guess and say that a lot less innocent babies get killed. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-08-18 18:21 |