Bush can ban abortion this year. Nationwide.

[jmowreader]

Without a Constitutional amendment.

And, if Alito gets installed, there's not a damn thing any of us can do about it.

Step 1 is to rig the Supreme Court with way too many antichoice Repukes. He's almost there now.

Step 2 is to find a case that has the potential to overturn Roe, have it heard and have Roe overturned.

At this point, abortion is back in the hands of the states, right? Wrong!

Step 3 is to sign an executive order making a state's share of the federal highway budget contingent on passing an abortion ban.

This is how the feds sidestep the 10th Amendment. They do it all the fucking time. This is how we got nationwide helmet laws. Nationwide seatbelt laws. Nationwide 21 year old drinking age. There's a bunch of other stuff I can't remember at 11:30 at night, but suffice it to say that if the federal government wants to implement a new federal law that would be declared unconstitutional if it was passed AS a federal law, they tie highway funds to its passage. IIRC you can do this to anything.

This is why the DUers who have either Democratic or reasonable Republican senators need to get on the phone. I have Liddy Dole and Richard Burr--no possibility of help THERE.

[TahitiNut]

1. It'd be Medicaid funding, I think, not highway funding.

:shrug: While reporoductive choice is a critical issue, please don't forget that it's all premised on an unenumerated right to privacy. If Roe is struck down, the far worse impact will be a HUGE infringement on human privacy of all kinds ... pregnancy, DNA, illnesses, even our very thoughts. Without a basic right of privacy, we're fucked.

[Maat]

12. I agree.

But, although the right to privacy is not strictly delineated in the 14th, if the founders meant for anything to hold up, it is the right to privacy. I point to the words of the 4th to back what I say up .. "the right of persons to be secure in their persons ..."

I really believe that the founders had a right to privacy in mind; they believed that the government should only go so far in regulating the behavior of citizens and residents.

I worry about the effects of an overturning of Roe on birth control practices. Would the Court go so far as to invalidate Griswald? That was the case precluding the states from forbidding a married couple from using birth control. That was one of the most important cases recognizing a right to privacy.

[napi21]

2. I have Isackson and Chambliss. I write to them all the time, but

they won't budge off the Pub line!

I hadn't thought of that, but it could be done that way.

I'm not convinced even Shrub would do that though. I suspect they know a move like that would throw the 06 & 08 election into the hands of the Dems! Not to mention possible all out riots!

[barb162]

3. It can happen in 2 months if Alito gets the nod, which I think

will happen. Something that women in this country have taken for granted for a few decades will be gone. It will be a bad day for the women of this country when that lying creep gets the nod

[NYCGirl]

4. And it would kill the Republican party deader than a doornail. And they

know it would.

[abluelady]

8. I believe you're right. eom

[meow2u3]

5. If they ban abortion, it'll bite the tyrants in the asses 20 years later

It'll create a baby boom and the kids, grown up, will launch a rebellion that will make the 60's look tame by comparison. There will so many Democrats that the repukes will be the tiny minority they really are.

Also, remember Rumania with Ceaucescu--look what happened to him after the children grew up.

[woodsprite]

9. Nah, he just found a way to create a bigger army. n/t

[global1]

16. The Repugs Must Have A Crapload Of Doctor's That Would Perform....

clandestine abortions for a crapload of money. Overturning R v W will create new criminals - women that will still get abortions and MD's or quacks that will do the abortion under the table for money.

Will they jail women that get abortions if R v W is overturned?

Remember 'speakeasys' and 'bathtub' gin during prohibition.

If R v W is overturned these prohibition no no's will be made to look like 'childs play'.

[NMMNG]

6. Fit me for a tinfoil hat if you want

:tinfoilhat:

But I can't help but agree with that possibility. In a time where warantless wiretaps, between session appointments to avoid naysayers, "eff the Geneva Conventions" torturing and other tramplings of the law and Constitution occur with frightening frequency, nothing would surprise me.

[Erika]

7. I would immediately protest in the most violent of ways

When the government treats my body as owned property, I will indeed refuse to pay taxes, I will burn the flag, and those are only the mild things.

This is not a theocracy where a bigoted few will determine the fate of all.

I also agree that the Republicans know they better back off of women's rights or there's no Republican party left.

It is up to us with the hard right D.C. reps to let them know abortion must be kept legal. We must hit them harder than normal. They know they have a weak president and a weak position for going into 2006 elections.

[Maat]

10. Whoa, there!

It takes years to get a case up to the High Court. Even if he were seated today, the grievance would have to happen today. Then it would have to go all the way up through a state court (three levels at least), and then the High Court would have to grant certiorari. Years.

Secondly, even if they outright overturned Roe today, it would merely mean that there would not be a recognized FEDERAL right.

It would then most probably be left up to the states to regulate it.

A federal ban likely would not survive a constitutional test. What would be the basis for the federal regulation - the Commerce Power? Remember that the one federal ban - the ban of the D&X procedure (I refuse to call it 'partial birth') - was stayed; it hasn't been implemented. And it likely will not survive a constitutional challenge.

Besides, the Court can't say, "The Commerce Power has been extended too far," and then, in the next breath try to justify a federal ban using it. It is just not going to fly.

So, in my humble opinion, even if Roe were overturned today, people in California and New York would not be hurt. It would be the people in Indiana would be hurt. Why do I say, "Indiana?" Because they are about to put in place a "trigger law." They cannot enforce the law until Roe is overturned. The second it is, the law will take effect .. until it is stayed (suspended) until a challenge is decided .. and on and on.

People will protest en masse in the streets before this gets too far.

[jmowreader]

19. If it's done right, a federal ban will survive constitutional scrutiny

Think about who's going to be on the Supreme Court: John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy. Any decision on the constitutionality of an abortion ban is going to eventually wind up in the hands of those five pro-life men.

Now look back to the original post and notice that I did NOT say a federal law banning abortion would be passed. Bush would never stoop so low as to do this. Instead, he'll tie some sort of critical federal funding to the states to the states' willingness to ban abortion on their own. You think California wouldn't be hurt by this? Tell California, "if you continue to allow abortion on demand, we'll turn off your Medicaid/highway/education funding" and see what happens. They will pass an abortion ban with great pleasure. New York will do the same thing, as will Massachusetts and Washington--those were four of the states that had legal abortion before Roe was passed and could be counted on to have it if Roe is taken away.

You think this won't work? Look at seatbelt laws. Every state has one. Look at helmet laws and the uniform 21-year-old drinking age. Same thing. Those were federal initiatives forced upon the states by threatening to withhold federal funding. This tactic works better than you could possibly imagine.

And who in the Bush administration gives a shit about protests? We've been protesting this fucking war even before it started. It hasn't worked. We put a million, million-five on the streets of DC and the day before it happens, Rove goes to Shrub and tells him the brush is starting to rise up again, so wouldn't it be wonderful to spend the weekend in Crawford?

Forget that "they'll be vulnerable at the ballot box" meme too. It's very simple to defeat Democrats, and it's all on the up-and-up. You can do it with paper ballots. Just find a strawman--gays getting married worked well in 2004; maybe "The Democrats are going to ban Christmas" will do in 2006--get your useful idiots screaming about it on every talk show, get enough Republican states to put it on their ballots, and Republicans will retain their majorities. I'm not shitting you. If I put a proposed Constitutional amendment on your state's ballot that read "no law infringing on public celebrations of a traditional Christmas shall be enacted" and got Faux, Rush, Hannity, "Doctor" Laura, Ann the Man and Ollie to all start screaming about how critical this amendment's passage was because the liberals will destroy Christmas without it, everyone even one click to the right is going to be lined up at the polls to save Christmas. And while they're there, they're gonna vote a straight Republican ticket. And next thing you know, 900-foot inflatable Jesuses are gonna show up right in front of City Hall and city ordinances banning retailers from saying anything but "Merry Christmas" will pass all over this great land of ours.

[Maat]

20. You know, he has already tried to tie up California's hands.

California has rejected his attempts. California pays for abortions out here in its publicly-funded health programs - this despite not being reimbursed for the procedures.

I hope that Booosh tries to do something like that - it will be the end of the Republican party out here.

I also question whether or not it would survive constitutionally. Yes, it has been held that Congress may attach strings to funds, but mandating seatbelts is a far different concept than trying to compel a state to forbid something.

They tried this technique with mandating the 55-mph speed limit; that did not work out.

I don't disagree with you that these are very disturbing times, but I'm not going to panic or make myself really scared. I'm going to focus on networking progressives, and on calling attention to their dirty schemes. It will backfire on them; I truly do believe that.

I believe that we will agree on the irony: when I was growing up and throughout my entire 47-year-old life, I've heard "states' rights, states' rights" from conservatives. And then they have the NERVE to try to pass a federal ban upon a medical procedure - the D&X (PBA)! They clearly are hypocritical to the maximum.

And I turned 18 in 1976, so I came of age having access to contraceptives and reproductive healthcare; it just blows my mind that my daughter might not have that.

But, I will fight to preserve reproductive rights until my last breath. That's that.

[Tracyjo]

11. I have Warner and Allen

No hope here either. Allen never even writes back.

[LibDemAlways]

15. Allen is lower than pond scum.

He's a phony Southerner (he comes from Southern California), and he has a bunch of racial skeletons in his closet. I went to high school with him and remember well the time he spraypainted racist graffiti on the walls of the school. He was caught and had to publically apologize. He's arrogant enough to think that no one remembers what an asshole he's been (he also displayed a noose in his law office) and apparently cares nothing for his constituents as witnessed by your not even getting the courtesy of a form letter response from his office. He's a reliable repuke vote, even though deep down he doesn't give a shit about all the "values" of the religious right. He only wants their money and their vote - in that order.

[Charlie Brown]

13. He already has (past the third tri-mester)

It's amazing how the "states rights" conservatives dissappear when it comes to women's rights and homosexuals.

[onenote]

14. so much misinformation, so little time

I'd like to see some links supporting the OP's assertions. I doubt they can be produced.
For example, there is no nationwide helmet law. In fact, a few states (including Colorado) have no helmet laws. Is Colorado getting by without federal highway funds? I doubt it.

There is no nationwide seatbelt law. There is a requirement, pursuant to an executive order issued by President Clinton, that federal employees use seatbelts and that seatbelts be worn on federal properties (such as national parks) and that federal contractors have a policy of requiring employees to wear seatbelts while on the job. Not tied to highway funding, just exercise of executive branch authority over federal employees, areas under federal jurisdiction and federal contractors.

Finally, there is a tie-in between a state having a drinking age of 21 and federal highway funds, but its not in an executive order, its in a law passed by Congress in 1984.

Finally, instead of believing scary sky-is-falling posts, I suggest a bit of common sense thinking: if national abortion limits could be adopted by executive order, why wouldn't have chimpy used the tactic to force states to adopt a national late term abortion limit or some other limit that might well survive judicial scrutiny? The fact that hasn't been tried speaks volumes about the likelihood of the tactic described.

onenote

[JVS]

17. I think they'd stop at overturning Roe

On one hand they want to throw some meat to their base, but on the other hand they don't want to kill the Golden Goose. So they put it to the states and it gets banned in Red State Country. To a large degree this makes their base happy but they'll be concerned that abortion is happening in the Blue states. Then they'll just say, "we need 2/3ds to enact a nationwide ban, so send money to the RNC."

[DanCa]

18. It goes much further than abortion and your right.

They'll outlaw stem cell research too, and they'll try to establish a national church of prolife. I fear things will only escalate down hill after that.

[opihimoimoi]

21. A step toward Banning Reason and Sanity too, I might add.