Will Roe vs. Wade really be overturned?

[adoraz]

Can someone with a lot of knowledge about this please educate me on whether or not Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if McCain becomes President, even with 1 term?

I remember people saying this back in 2000, and it hasn't happened.

From my understanding, 5-4 of the SC support abortion, is this true? I know that most of the older members are liberal, but are any planning on retiring, or have really bad health and will die in the next 4 years?

Now, I really don't know much about law. Lets say if it is overturned, then what happens? Will the states have the opportunity to make abortion illegal?

If abortion is made illegal, could it ever be made legal again for the whole country?

If the states vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, could abortion ever be made legal again in those particular states?

Thanks, I am really confused with all this. Just want to educate myself.

I want to use this as ammo, but I want to make sure it is true before I tell people.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Without any doubt.

Stevens is ANCIENT. Ginsberg is quite old, and has had cancer. Both have presumably been hanging on hoping for a Dem to win.

When Roe was overturned choice would not be a national right. It would be up to the states.

So places like NY and CA would remain choice states, but most of the vast empty states would outlaw abortion quickly. Unfortunately for women in those states they would be like 1,000 miles from a choice state. (Imagine Alaska! It would cost thousands of dollars to get an abortion... flying to Washington or Oregon, staying at least overnight, etc..)

[adoraz]

2. oh okay thanks, I wasn't sure how old they were or their health

can anyone answer the later questions regarding law (what exactly will happen if it becomes illegal?)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. I edited my post some to address that.

[adoraz]

8. thanks again

[Unsane]

10. It may not become a 'states rights' issue at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6952925&mesg_id=6952925

[vaberella]

12. Oh man. How can someone ever think to be a Republican?

I'm already having problems being a Black woman, and let me tell you that is no picnic. Blacks are already second class, not to the way they were 20 or 30 years ago, but it's still there. To see my reproductive organs under debate and probably up for regulation by state officials who think they have the right to decide what I do with them gauls me. I cannot see my gender or sexuality going back 50 years. Jesus.

[kestrel91316]

3. It hangs by a thread. One moe anti-abortion justice and it's

the end of abortion AND birth control. For generations.

And I don't want to hear any claptrap about how the RW will NEVER do this because then they won't have it to fight about anymore. They will simply move on to their next goal: one family/one vote. You denialists either can't or won't understand what these freaks are really about.

[elleng]

4. If it were overturned,

each State would be in position to make any law it saw fit on the issue; the matter comes closer to the people, where many think it should be anyway.

[Unsane]

7. Maybe not, though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6952925&mesg_id=6952925

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. The problem with closer to the people is that we are a nation of persons, not a people

Matters involving an individual right cannot (should not) properly be left to the states because American citizens are American first, with the rights of Americans, and only incidentally state citizens.

The classic example is voting rights. Black individuals couldn't vote in certain states because that was the will of those states. It was most definitely the will of those states. Unambiguously. But at least since the incorporation of the 14th amendment the will of the majority of a state cannot negate the rights of an individual.

That's why it is important that choice be an individual right of Americans, not a matter of state policy option.

[PlanetBev]

17. No, elleng

It should be closer to each individual woman, where many think it should be. Fuck the states.

[susanna]

22. Do you really think that?

I live in my own state, and I wouldn't trust the majority here to tell me jack about my health decisions, up to and including reproductive matters.

I personally think that it violates the spirit of equal protection if it goes to the states; if women are U.S. citizens, deserving of liberty as the Constitution requires, we deserve a one-stop-decision on such matters that covers us federally. Just my thoughts. They may be naive, but I've never pretended to be anything more than a thinking person without a law degree.

on edit: qualifiers

[Unsane]

6. Check out my thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6952925&mesg_id=6952925

[adoraz]

14. hmm... see this is why I am so confused

different people seem to be saying different things regarding this.

thanks for the info, this is very confusing.

[scheming daemons]

9. No..... because Obama is going to win and name the next 3 justices...

[adoraz]

11. I was pretty damn confident before the Conventions

but now, I just don't know anyone.

there are a bunch of idiots in America.

[scheming daemons]

18. There were the same amount of idiots BEFORE the conventions...

Relax.

Obama will win.

[adoraz]

24. yeah, but sadly those idiots will be the deciding factor

it just depends how many get suckered into the McCain ticket between now and November.

I can't really relax, I am very frustrated. :(

[Chan790]

48. Get active.

Truly. You make a difference. I've started joining message boards of major newspapers in swing states and posting facts and data to refute RW talking points. In less than a week I've neutralized an overwhelming RW presence on the board of the largest paper in a major midwestern city, armed the local liberals with facts and talking points, and brought them from lurking to speaking. We've driven, by and large, the RWers from the board and anybody who reads an article, any political article, on that newspaper's site would be under the impression that an overwhelming majority of their neighbors favor Obama. It's a voting district we haven't won since 1980...next step is to move to the other papers in that city and the local news affiliates.

[Boz]

19. Roe Vs Wade may get turned over during an Obama Presidency

Its bad law.

Dont jump Im not saying get rid of its protections. Just that from a law standpoint its bad law and may be overturned in either presidency.

The difference is obviously, an Obama administration would make sure the protections are stable in supporting legislation before even thinking about replacing the BAD LAW and constitutional flaws in Roe VS Wade.

Please don't jump on me without understanding what I am saying, when some say Roe VS Wade is BAD LAW they are right.

Its the protections that are important not the flawed law. The problem is many cannot separate the two.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. I won't jump on you. It's an absurd decision.

The viability argument prefigures the worst of Sandra Day O'Connor's waffling, poll-driven "practical" bullshit.

Viability changes with every medical advance. It's an absurd basis for a right.

But the correct answer would be tough to swallow... a hard and fast rule. I would use an outside the mother and breathing unassisted standard of viability. (Keep in mind the standard is for the mother. If someone wanted to deliver a very premature child and sustain it through heroic medical efforts that would be her CHOICE.)

[Unsane]

33. I tend to think a Bush-style conservative court would bypass discussions of viability altogether,

and simply rule that no fundamental privacy right exists as it relates to an abortion.

[Zebedeo]

47. For Pete's sake

your standard of "outside the mother and breathing unassisted" would allow millions of children and adults who need respiratory assistance to be exterminated.

Why stop there? If a need for assistance in breathing means a person does not deserve to live, what about those with heart pacemakers? Shall we kill them, too? What about those who cannot walk, or who have imperfect vision or are hard of hearing?

Please think before you post such horrifying eugenics crap.

[Chan790]

49. You've missed the point...

those are all situations where a person has self-autonomy...or one in which that decision is already legally recognized as valid when made by a specific next-of-kin party with grounds to make that decision.

You've muddled two issues here:

What is the standard for viability in a pregnancy?

Do the mechanically-assisted-to-survive have a right to choose to die or absent the ability to self-determine, do their families have a right to make that decision?

I have to say that I don't have a problem with that as a viability standard and I support a right to die with dignity.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

51. Boy, you've got me pegged!

Yes, you are absolutely correct. The standard I described in a discussion of abortion rights in terms of defining FETAL viability is obviously meant to apply to adults with respiratory problems. The give-away is that the standard is stated to be applicable only to the mother's choice, so I am proposing that a 70 year old woman is allowed to empty a shotgun into her 45 year old son on a respirator.

And in the case of the elderly we will have a fucking seance to determine the mother's intent.

It would be nice if you would make at least a minimal effort to understand what's being said before you essentially call me the second coming of Joseph Mengle.

I know... I should be more polite when responding to someone who called me a would-be exterminating eugenicist.

[Bubbha Jo]

13. I'm getting tired of hearing threats for decades though....

I think we need some sort of Constitutional Amendment defining privacy of a right. It's truly a possession that too many intrude.

[Thrill]

16. As soon as they have the judges. The Conservatives will waste no time having a case before the court

It will no doubt be overturned. And quickly

[justiceischeap]

20. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, here's what I invision for State's rights

The argument that Roe v. Wade would "never" be overturned because it would no longer be a wedge issue, well, I got an answer for that. They would then use it in a state to state battle trying to pass legislation that would make it illegal for women to go over state lines to get an abortion in states that would allow it. So, say you're a woman and you become preggers then go from, let's say Kansas to NYC to have an abortion, they could then charge you with murder when you returned if they found out you had an abortion. That's what I would see their next battle being if Roe v. Wade were overturned and it became a state issue.

Palin says she supports the death penalty for anyone "who kills any child." Well, we know most of these whacko's believes life starts at conception. How much longer before they outlaw masturbation? Men are wasting future babies you know.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

23. Fortunately even a conservative court would strike down state-line laws

Commerce clause and the freedom to travel throught the states.

The same reason your home state cannot outlaw you gambling on a trip to Las Vegas.

[Unsane]

25. State laws restricting freedom of interstate travel would be invalidated as unconstitutional

I'm nearly certain of it. The right to interstate travel has been adjudged fundamental time after time.

[justiceischeap]

29. The point though, is it would still be a wedge issue.

They don't lose their "abortion get out the vote drive" by overturning Roe v. Wade.

Of course, whoever thought the Supreme Court would decide a Presidential election or that our civil liberties would be slowly eroded. Who thought we'd have CIA black sites, create a Guantonemo (sp) Bay or wage war on a people unlawfully? It all depends on who's in power. To say that something would never happen just isn't a plausible argument anymore if the Fundies take over.

[rufus dog]

26. DING DING DING - this addresses the big issue

Even in states like mine, California, where it would be upheld at a state level, there would be referendums on every ballot. Attempts to overturn, refine, on and on. The fundies need to wise the fuck up so that abortions can be reduced, not outlawed.

As for masturbation, I would be like Kraemer - "I'm Out."

[BrklynLiberal]

21. Absolutely,positively, without a doubt if Obama is not elected Roe v Wade is history

and lots of other rights that we have held dear since the American Revolution will disappear..except of course, the right to have a gun.

[crimsonblue]

42. whites could keep their guns

but them "gang bangers" and scary Arabs? Hell no.

[BrklynLiberal]

46. True dat.

[adoraz]

27. thanks for all the replies- 1 more question for anyone who knows

If abortion is made illegal, could it ever be made legal again?

Like, lets say if the court goes 5-4 in favor of no abortions, but then the next term it goes 5-4 in favor of abortion. what happens then?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. Yes, but that's not the question.

The supreme court cannot outlaw abortion nationally. Congress would have to do that and be upheld by the court.

All Roe does is bar certain state and federal laws limiting choice. If it were overturned that would not, in itself, make abortion illegal anywhere.

(And old laws that were struck down by Roe wouldn't leap back to life. New laws would have to be passed by states.)

And yes, the court could rediscover the national reproductive privacy rights of American residents the following session and that would then be the law of the land, striking down whatever new laws had been passed.

[McCamy Taylor]

35. We do not know that the court would not try to outlaw abortion. If they did

say that abortion was unConstitutional by claiming that life begins at conception and that the state has an obligation to protect all citizens including the unborn as it does children, then the Congress might have to pass a Constitutional Amendment--which would never happen---or get a new Supreme Court. Which could take years.

When the Supreme Court said that the death penalty was cruel and unusual that threw lots of people for a loop. I can see them going the other way quite easily.

However, the GOP makes more political gains out of it by throwing it to the states.

[Unsane]

38. The SCOTUS interprets Constiutional language

The legal question is whether the Constitution protects a woman's right to choose; not whether having an abortion is 'wrong.'

[depakid]

53. Think so?

What does this language look like to you:

Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child. The Act recognizes this reality as well. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision. Casey, supra, at 852-853 (opinion of the Court). While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 05-380, pp. 22-24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow. See ibid.

In a decision so fraught with emotional consequence some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the means that will be used, confining themselves to the required statement of risks the procedure entails. From one standpoint this ought not to be surprising. Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest the usual anxiety preceding invasive medical procedures become the more intense. This is likely the case with the abortion procedures here in issue. See, e.g., Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 466, n. 22 ("Most of experts acknowledged that they do not describe to their patients what procedures entail in clear and precise terms"); see also id., at 479.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380

[Unsane]

55. I say again, the SCOTUS would be acting ultra vires (i.e, courts interpret law, not make it)

should it announce by some sort of judicial fiat that 'abortion is illegal.' The SCOTUS can only adjudge cases and controversies that arise before it under the language of the U.S. Constitution and federal/state law. Constitutional questions about abortion must include state action. A SCOTUS decision declaring illegal an abortion performed by a private doctor is outside its bounds (assuming the Court isn't interpreting a validly enacted federal statute).

Is it confusing? Yes. In short, the SCOTUS cannot declare abortion illegal, but Cogress likely could (and the SCOTUS would uphold or deny constitutionality of such a law).


The text you quote is of the Court interpreting a federal law, not 'making its own law.' Abortion may become illegal, but a legislative body would have to make it so.

[depakid]

56. Well, many of us saw that statement as about as moralizing as you can get

on an issue- with the least amount of evidence. I wouldn't call it intra vires per se (as was the case with Bush v. Gore)- but it IS indicative of the way that certain justices think- and their willingness to interject their own "morals" into questions of law.

btw: It's not confusing to me. The question arose as to whether the Court would uphold Congress' use of commerce clause power to criminalize abortions on a national level.

From past decisions, and given the nature of the types McCain will put on the Court- I think that's a distinct possiblity. The commerce clause cases are in flux and all over the board.

What's more likely to happen, of course, is that they'll go ahead and overrule the Griswold paradigm, and leave it to the states. That way, the southtern and midwestern theocrats can have their way- as can the more sensible states on the West Coast- and hopefully, the Northeast.

[Unsane]

37. Should Roe be overturned, the SCOTUS has recently implied Congress could restrict it nationally

Which is ridiculous, as Congress has never had Commerce Clause power before to legislation individual healthcare decisions. Even Thomas mentioned this fallacy. It seems the conservative justices like to rule against a broad Commerce Clause interpretation unless it is their pet issue (like abortion); at least Thomas is consistent.

[depakid]

52. 4 members of the court would probably uphold commerce clause power on this issue

based on the concurrence Gonzales v. Carhart.

People need to understand that the far right justices the Democrats have confirmed base their decisions on results oriented jurisprudence.

They decide how they want the case decided on policy grounds, then go back and create the legal reasoning (sophisty) to support it.

[McCamy Taylor]

32. Don't count on it. Justices try to retire when one of their own party is in office.

[McCamy Taylor]

30. BEWARE of GOPers claiming an overturn will not happen now that the convention is over.

The so called "PUMA"s and Geraldine Ferraro types are going to be all "John McCain is really pro-choice, he is just pretending to be anti-choice to court the base." Do not believe this lie for a second. The Republicans tried stringing the base along with their promise of no-gay marriage in 2004 which quickly changed into privatizing social security. That is why they are having to court the base all over again now. There is no way that the base will come back to the fold if they are denied on this. And, as someone posted above, the state by state battles over abortion rights and the battles over Congressional control over the issue of abortion are just too hot a topic for the GOP to resist.

Here is how it will play out if McCain is elected. Roe v. Wade is overturned. With Dems in control of Congress for now, abortion returns to the states except that the McCain Department of Justice has the ability to prosecute anything it wants to. So, if it decides that it wants to assists states in enforcing their abortion statutes by restricting women's rights to travel, it will do so. And the SCOTUS will uphold any crazy draconian law that the red states enact.

Blue states will remain choice.

Red states will pass crazy laws. I mean crazy. The fertilized ovum will be declared a citizen of the state---positive blood pregnancy test and that baby is a citizen. That means that if the state has reason to believe that you did anything that hurt or aborted the child (even caused a miscarriage) you are guilty of murder. Travel to a blue state will be restricted. You had better be pregnant when you come back or you had better not come back. And the feds may drag you back if they feel like it.

This will disqualify women for many jobs and careers which will make second class status for women perfectly legal----so employers will have cheap labor forever. That is what restrictions on birth control are all about. Limiting a woman's education and work experience so that jobs can hire someone at half the wages of men. Same as racism is all about having a workforce that can be paid half as much as whites. Prejudice is maintained because it makes some capitalist rich, and if some stupid self proclaimed "feminist" tells you reproductive issues do not matter, that is because she is a fucking capitalist pig at heart who enjoys being able to hire a woman (or a Latino) for half the wages of a white man.

[PBS Poll-435]

34. If McGoiter/SexyHairUpLibrarian win, YES.

The newly minted 7-2 Supreme Court grants certiorari to BobbiJoJeanMalox vs Bovina County Department of Health.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Mark Levin.

The court finds that in the question of B v B, the state must act quickly to secure the rights of the unborn. Such extreme measures as a SWAT team intercepting, securing, and detaining BobbiJoJeanMalox after her boyfriend called the Trojan "Broken Condom Hotline," does not constitute "unreasonable search, seizure, or gestating."

The court also finds that BobbiJoJeanMalox must pay the legal fees of the US Government.

[ContinentalOp]

36. I seriously doubt it.

What would they use to rile up the fundies then?

[McCamy Taylor]

39. State by state they will use the possibility of passing anti-abortion laws.

And they will encourage them to use election fraud to further their goals. And they will try for a Constitutional Amendment for the future.

[Unsane]

40. The US Congress could probably pass a nationwide abortion ban

per the recent PBA decision last term.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

41. Gays, 'Mexicans', Russia, God, Muslims, gun control, liberals...

they'll never run out of material.

[No Elephants]

43. Don't let people who say that the states should decide fool or confuse you.

Roe v. Wade held that the states could not make abortion illegal because the federal Constitution gives women a right to decide about their own bodies, especially in the first trimester. Saying the states may/should decide means that any state can prohibit abortion again. And, once that happens, some, like Sarah Palin, will go after the right to contraception as well. And, yes, the justices who hold the line on abortion are old, one very old. However, bear in mind that, at any time, anyone can die or become ill or have to leave the court for another reason. Or just want to retire.

I put together this info back in March for a non-political board, so the age information is slightly out of date. However, you can google for the exact dates of birth. With that caveat, here is the data:


Supreme Court Justices-Age Order.



1. Justice Stevens was born in 1920 and appointed by Ford. If Justice Stevens lives until his 2009 birthday, he will turn 89 then. Eight years after that, if living, he will turn 97 (twelve years, 101).



2. Justice Ginsburg was born in 1933. If Justice Ginsburg lives until her 2009 birthday, she will turn 76 then. Eight years after that, if living, she will turn 84 (twelve years, 88). She is one of only two Justices appointed by a Democrat.



3. Justice Scalia was born in 1936 and appointed by Reagan. If Justice Scalia lives until his 2009 birthday, he will turn 73 then. Eight years after that, if living, he will turn 81 (twelve years, 85).



4. Justice Kennedy was born in 1936 and appointed by Reagan. If Justice Kennedy lives until his 2009 birthday, he will turn 73 then. Eight years after that, if living, he will turn 81 (twelve years, 85).



5. Justice Breyer was born in 1938 and is the only other Democratic appointee. If Justice Breyer lives until his 2009 birthday, he will turn 71 then. Eight years after that, if living, he will turn 79 (twelve years, 83).



6. Justice Souter was born in 1939 and appointed by Bush 41. If Justice Souter lives until his 2009 birthday, he will turn 70 years old then. Eight years after that, if living, he will turn 78 (twelve years, 82).



7. Justice Thomas was born in 1948 and appointed by Bush 41. If Justice Thomas lives until his 2009 birthday, he will be only 61. Eight years after that, if living, he will be only 69 (twelve years, still only 73).



8. Justice Alito was born in 1950 and appointed by Bush 43. If Justice Alito lives until his 2009 birthday, he will be only 59. Eight years after that, if still living, he will be only 67 (twelve years, still only 71).



9. Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice and the youngest of all the Justices, was born in 1955 and also appointed by Bush 43. If Chief Justice Roberts lives until his 2009 birthday, he will be only 54. Eight years after that, if still living, he will be only 62 (twelve years, still only 66).

[crimsonblue]

44. some people seem to forget that SCOTUS

can do whatever the fuck it wants. They are THE supreme law of the land. SCOTUS truly has more power than either Congress or the Executive because the court's decision may not be appealed. If they wanted, ANY ruling could be written in such a way that no method of correction exists save Ammendment. SCOTUS decided an election, and said its ruling may never be used for a future case. SCOTUS could define any and all fertilized embryos as citizens without exception, and therefore permanently ban abortion.

THE SINGLE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY IS A HIGH COURT FULL OF EXTREMISTS HELL BENT ON REFORMING THE COUNTRY IN THEIR OWN LIKING.

[EC]

45. One more conservative Judge

you bet yeah....


On Edit: It'll include birth control too...since Bush wanted to change the definition of abortion to include birth control...

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

50. It is hanging by Anthony Kennedy now

Kennedy believes in "stare decisis" or "let the decision stand." Roberts, Alito, Fat Tony Scalia and Clarence "Yas, Massuh. I shorely do beleebe that!" Thomas give not one shit for anything but the fascist agenda. If Souter, Stevens, Breyer or Ginsburg retires, Roe is a gone goose. Stevens would like to retire, but will have to be carried off the Court with a toe tag on him before he lets a Repuke nominate his replacement. He's well into his 80s but in good health and is no doubt praying to his god that Obama is elected.

[LSdemocrat]

54. Maybe not explicitly, but even the current court will kill Roe v. Wade piece by piece

Instead of outright overturning Roe v. Wade, the court will simply approve every state created restriction as a "reasonable regulation" that will ultimately result in abortion being available to only the richest of women in the bluest of jurisdictions.