|
|
Post by rockkid on Feb 24, 2006 20:54:50 GMT -5
I'll go with safe, rare & legal
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 24, 2006 20:55:16 GMT -5
Before South Dakota made this bold move, there were already 3 states (alas, if I remember correctly, Tennessee is one of them - not exactly fabulous news for me.....) which had laws rendering abortion illegal effective immediately upon the overturning of Roe. Does anyone remember what these states are? And of course there's a whole host of slightly less stringent laws in a variety of other states....
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Feb 24, 2006 21:01:41 GMT -5
Rocky, I'm interested as to the reasons why these news commentators figured the Supremes would be unlikely to take this case? You actually hit on a couple of their main points, specifically this: This will be a very strategic vote. The justices who want to preserve Roe would obviously want to vote against granting cert... And also this: They might nonetheless be wary of taking such a high-stakes abortion case - all-or-nothing - sooooo soon after their appointment. They spent a lot of time assuring the Senate of the fact that they hadn't rigidy made up their minds about anything and that they weren't predisposed to rule a particular way in an abortion case (no doubt a complete farce - which they're nonetheless forced to engage on by our country's stupid mythology about what judges do) and they might be reluctant to come out guns blazing so soon after the confirmation hearings. They covered that point in quite a bit of detail, talking about how their statements in their confirmation hearings are still so fresh on people's minds, and emphasizing that, although they have lifetime appointments, they still aren't isolated from newspaper headlines and public opinion, and sometimes are still mindful of those things when they make their decisions even though their jobs aren't dependent on them like the political branches' jobs are. Oh, and I was also reminded by you saying this... From their perspective it might be much wiser to delay until Stevens, who is 85, dies or leaves the court - if this happens during Bush's second term, then get ready for a confirmation battle which will make Alito seem like a lovefest. One of them thought that, since obviously it's going to take some time for this thing to make it to the Supreme Court, that perhaps some of the anti-abortion people were trying to get a move on this now so that perhaps it would reach the Court some time shortly after Stevens is gone. Basically, they thought that the timing of it was intended to get Roe v. Wade overturned as quickly as possible, so they thought they'd get the wheels in motion now for the Court to hear it sometime later after the balance has fully changed over. That would be one hell of a risk, since no one really knows just how quickly this case is going to reach the Court, or just how much longer Stevens will be on the Court, and quite frankly, I thought this part specifically was one of the less logical things they said. I was skeptical of some of it anyway, but a lot of it did make sense, but this part sure didn't. Now, I recognize that if a person thinks that abortion is murder, then they obviously want to get it banned again ASAP. This makes total sense. But it's already been 36 years since Roe v. Wade and 14 years already since Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Those most active in the cause must realize that it's not that easy to get a case heard by the Supreme Court. They'll certainly hear an issue that is important enough, but they won't hear the same issue repeatedly over a short time. If this case makes it up to the Court while Stevens is still there and Roe is upheld, then how long would they have to wait again to get another chance? Certainly they wouldn't be able to get the issue heard again any time soon even after Stevens is gone. I just don't see that as being a risk that they'd take. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Feb 24, 2006 21:07:13 GMT -5
I did a google search to try to answer your question, Mary, and stumbled upon this: www.crlp.org/pdf/bo_whatifroefell.pdfIt's something put together by the Center for Reproductive Rights that gives a state-by-state analysis of what would likely happen if Roe is overturned. So the answer should be in there. I've just started to peruse it. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Feb 24, 2006 21:19:50 GMT -5
Mary, I found what you're looking for. There's a little section on "trigger laws". The language of it is a little confusing, so I'll just quote it exactly, since it's pretty short:
Beginning shortly after the decision in Roe, some states adopted statutes or constitutional amendments that call for abortion bans, or assert that abortion will be banned if the U.S. Supreme Court eliminates federal consitutional protection for the right to choose abortion. Six states have such laws, often called "trigger laws" because they suggest that an abortion ban will immediately and automatically be triggered if Roe is overturned. Trigger laws, however, would not have this effect by themselves. For example, Illinois has a trigger law stating that if Roe is overturned or modified, the "policy" of Illinois to prohibit abortions will be "reinstated." Illinois has also repealed it's pre-Roe abortion ban, however, so that even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, there is no ban in place to reinstate. Several other states have enacted statutes providing that it is the policy of the state to prohibit abortions, or to protect fetuses, but these laws do not contain actual bans. Moreover, in all but three of these states (Alabama, Louisiana, and Utah), pre-Roe bans have been repealed, leaving nothing for the policy to "trigger." In the three states with bans on the books, courts have declared the laws unconstitutional, thus preventing them from being instantly revived if Roe is overturned, in spite of the policy statements. Such laws are, however, a strong indication of future action by the legislature.
|
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Feb 25, 2006 15:03:26 GMT -5
Less abortion = more idiots the world doesn't need.
Please, don't anybody try and tell me Layla didn't mean this. This is all the evidence needed to show that abortion rights advocates are akin to Nazis. To keep unwanted people from wandering around this country causing trouble, throw 'em in the trash can.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Feb 25, 2006 15:30:13 GMT -5
Less abortion = more idiots the world doesn't need. Please, don't anybody try and tell me Layla didn't mean this. This is all the evidence needed to show that abortion rights advocates are akin to Nazis. To keep unwanted people from wandering around this country causing trouble, throw 'em in the trash can. I'm pretty sure she was joking, but even if not, I think you're making a pretty big jump to assume that all pro-choice people would agree with that statement. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Feb 25, 2006 15:46:57 GMT -5
Kill 'em all, let Allah sort'em out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Feb 25, 2006 15:56:44 GMT -5
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Layla didn't mean that and that melon needs to lighten up alittle.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Feb 25, 2006 16:09:35 GMT -5
Nice to see the many old goats in the South Dakota legislature taking upon themselves to mess around with a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE !! If they think that it will stop a woman who's decided to get an abortion they are even more stupid than their decision makes them look !! The state has essentailly already decided for itself in all honesty. There is one abortion clinic in the state. They have to fly doctors into the state to perform them at this clinic, and it's not even available every day. |
|
|
|
Post by poseidon on Feb 25, 2006 16:11:34 GMT -5
How terribly sad and how desperate those woman must be and feel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Feb 25, 2006 16:17:29 GMT -5
Nice to see the many old goats in the South Dakota legislature taking upon themselves to mess around with a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE !! If they think that it will stop a woman who's decided to get an abortion they are even more stupid than their decision makes them look !! The state has essentailly already decided for itself in all honesty. There is one abortion clinic in the state. They have to fly doctors into the state to perform them at this clinic, and it's not even available every day. Is this true? Only one? Wow... |
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Feb 25, 2006 16:18:18 GMT -5
Looks like my initial thoughts on Alabama might not hold up. It would likely go down, just maybe not as fast as some other states.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Feb 25, 2006 16:19:11 GMT -5
How terribly sad and how desperate those woman must be and feel. Either that, or else the demand is not there, therefore the clinics don't exsist. I can't even begin to count the number of women I know who say "I've never have an abortion myself, but I think it should be legal". It is just as absurd to assume that anyone WANTS abortion to happen on a frequent basis as it is to assume that every woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy desparately wants one. You just can't assume to know a woman's desires and motivations in a case like that. Even the woman herself can't assume to know it until she's faced with the decision. |
|
|
|
Post by poseidon on Feb 25, 2006 16:20:24 GMT -5
Texas will be 2nd if it goes down.
|
|
