Which red states would keep abortion legal in a post Roe v. Wade world?

[bluestateguy]

And when I say legal, I mean legal without cumbersome, harassing regulations.

I'm thinking some of those light red states and/or red states that have a libertarian streak to them. I'm thinking Alaska, Nevada, New Mexico and maybe Arizona (Janet Napolitano is safe for 2006, and her veto pen can protect abortion rights through 2010).

Also, if Democrats win governorship in Colorado, Ohio, Florida and Iowa then abortion rights would be safe for four more years.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, governorships and state legislative races will take on a renewed importance.

[NNadir]

1. None. The court will rule a fetus a person.

You think it can't happen? Just wait.

[cali]

3. What court?

The one that's currently sitting? Not a chance. And if dems, as expected, regain seats in the Senate, bush will not be able to appoint wingnut Justices to replace those currently sitting. The court would have to be a lot wingnuttier than it is now for the court to rule that a fetus is a person.

[NNadir]

5. I hope you're right. But much of what we discuss these days seemed

impossible a few short years ago.

Torture?

We are discussing in this country whether or not torture is an allowed and appropriate practice?

We have yet to learn about these new guys. They may be much worse than anyone knows.

[cali]

7. I suspect Alito and Roberts

are our worst nightmare, but there still aren't enough votes on the SC to overturn Roe, let alone declare that life begins at conception.

[CarlSheeler4U]

10. I'm sorry to have to disagree. The last swing vote was with

SDO'C and she's gone and Roberts will go right.

[cali]

15. Kennedy has voted to uphold Roe

Will he be swayed by Stevens? Maybe. Will he take up the mantle of the swing vote? More likely. Kennedy has also voted, on many occasions with the "O'Connor block."

[CarlSheeler4U]

16. We will see.

[CarlSheeler4U]

11. Time will tell.

[cali]

2. Huh?

"And when I say legal, I mean legal without cumbersome, harassing regulations."

Many states already impose cumbersome and harassing regulation, including, but not limited to, Mississippi and South Dakota. Imposing such regs became possible in Casey in1992 when the "undue burden" standard was substituted for the "fundamental right" standard.

I personally don't see Roe being overturned within the next 3 years, and if we win back the Senate this year, and the Presidency, I don't see it being overturned, period. The next real whittling of Roe is the Federal PBA ban which the SC will probably uphold, leading to the ability of the states to further impose more restrictive regs.

[xchrom]

6. casey effectively hamstrung roe.

the number of states that will impose draconian restrictions on offices that provide abortion services will continue to grow.

the right doesn't need to overturn roe to do serious damage to it state by state.

[cali]

8. Unfortunately, most people at DU

appear to be shockingly ignorant about this. They're focusing on SD which doesn't really pose a threat when the real danger is right in front of our noses, (and about to be heard by the SC).

[CarlSheeler4U]

12. If we wait to act by reacting, it's already too late. Same as every thing

[xchrom]

13. i was on the phone talking to a friend in london

last night.

a very dear woman friend -- who is an american married to a brit -- and she is on a low boil over this.

she's a woman of a certain age and has fought the abortion battle{like any feminist of a certain age -- it's all about women owning their bodies} -- and does not or will not understand the willingness of americans to let this go.

especially younger women who don't want to or can't see the threat.

the willingness of the left to compromise on a statute like casey means{to the right} that they can eventually drive roe off the books.

leftists, democrats, moderately liberal, radicals are all going to have to see that there are some things they cannot compromise on -- or they will be hoisted, impaled on their own willingness to ''get along''.

[CarlSheeler4U]

9. already happening and when will pro-choice push back

[xchrom]

14. i don't think it's the pro-choice movement per se

i think it's the unwillingness of a vast number of americans to be outraged.

[CarlSheeler4U]

17. And what can we do to change that - give it an outlet?!

[xchrom]

18. i'm motivated -- you're motivated

NOW is motivated and on and on -- and each of these acts - but unless the vast middle realizes it's in trouble -- real trouble then things will stay much the same.

and that scenario remains largely the case with even dems in charge.

the public is somnambulent for now and doesn't want to wake up.
otherwise the supremes would have had a vastly different crowd outside their vaunted building in 00.

[CarlSheeler4U]

19. We can do it!

We have two weeks to do three things:

1) Raise $15,000+ for another month of Sheeler's Impeach Bush Billboard on I-95
2) Raise awareness to a level media starts making the Bush Impeachment a central issue
3) Pressure Rhode Islanders to pressure their state legislators to begin proceedings so they send a joint resolution to the US House Floor where Articles of Impeachment must be heard

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=529406&mesg_id=529406

Faith, family, flag

Carl

Sheeler for US Senate
www.carlsheeler.com
592 Hopkins Hill Road
West Greenwich, RI 02817

[CarlSheeler4U]

4. More importantly, which blue states would keep it illegal

In RI, constitutionally, abortion is illegal. Frightening, the majority in our General Assembly are pro-life. Go figyuh.

[Inland]

20. None that border a blue state.

No red state within a car ride from a blue state will ban abortions. As long as SDers can travel to Minnesota for their abortions, they'll keep voting against them. Because anti abortion people don't mind abortions for the good girls who get in trouble, that is, have money and are related. Because they are hypocrites and shits.

[depakid]

21. I think the question may be

which states will keep birth control. I can think of several candidates who'll do away with that.

If Casey is overturned (Roe is no longer the controlling case) then another case called Griswold goes with it- hence- your entire federal right to reproductive freedom.

And when that happens, you can thank the Dems who let Roberts and Alito (not to mention Scalia and Thomas) onto the court- just as much as you can thank the Republicans for appointing them. That's one thing Nader was absolutely right about.

[zonmoy]

22. none

since the first thing the repuke cabal will do is to make all abortion illegal at the federal level. it will be quickly followed by the human life begins at conception amendment to the constitution.

[dsc]

23. The sky is falling is getting a wee bit tiresome

First, there is no chance, none, that the SC will rule that life begins at conception. Even Scalia has never, as in not one single time, in any case, ever, argued that. Go ahead, look it up. He has never, in a legal case, argued that. I honestly doubt that they will even overturn Roe, but they sure won't rule life begins at conception.

Second, I doubt there is even one state with large scale access to abortion now, which will ban abortion. I do think that regulation will happen. Georgia and Ohio might go pretty far if Republicans hold on to their positions of power but I don't think that will happen in Ohio. In any case, you can count on one hand the number of states that will seriously regulate abortion if Roe falls.

Third, the South Dakota law is DOA. Kennedy has made in clear, unambiguous language, statements that Roe is not to be overturned and that undue burdens on abortion are unacceptable. If the SD law isn't a set of undue burdens I have no clue what is.