I Hope SCOTUS Does Overturn Roe

[cali]

Here's why. First let me state that I'm firmly pro-choice, but Roe has already been whittled down considerably. With the newly reconfigured court, one of two things will happen: They'll either further gut Roe using the undue burden test, or they'll turn it back to the states. The results will be pretty much the same whichever way the court goes; if your'e middle or upper class, you'll be able to obtain an abortion. Poor and/or a teenager, the obstacles will impede your access.

Roe has been a powerful political tool for the right for over 3 decades. If they overturn Roe, not only would there be an incredible backlash against republicans, but that divisive tool, on a national level, would largely disappear.

If you don't believe me, regarding the status of abortion access today, please check out NARAL's newest state by state report card:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/yourstate/whodecides/index.cfm

[saracat]

1. Nice. A womens life in order to prove a political point.

How very Republican of you! I understand the point but I am not willing to surrender my rights or endanger a single owmen for five minutes inorder to make political capital!

[seabeyond]

5. well you may not have a choice. if it happens.... then what

i think that it might be a point where our society does take abortion rights away. then what. i think what it will do is allow people to see there was a reason for it.

just as the older die, because they dont get their prescriptions cause bush is an uncaring fuck up. it isnt because anyone wants a single old person to die...... we fight for them every day, as we continue to fight for the right of abortion. but then what. when old people start dying, (which is already in the process) then you will see people say we have to do something.

it isnt a willing for it to happen. itis a when it does happen, what will be the result

[Beststash]

6. Women unite at the polls

I totally agree with you, but as a man I go not understand why more women are not outraged at the thought that other people can make better choices for you and your body. I don't see the outrage at the polls, I guess you might call it the silent majority.:shrug:

[yellowdoginGA]

15. mississippi and utah

would outlaw it completely, every other state would make it available in some form or another.

[Maddy McCall]

37. Maybe. Maybe not.

If it comes down to the nut cutting, I don't think Mississippi would outlaw it. As much as women in this state bitch and gripe about abortion, many of them and their daughters have had one. When it comes down to the secret ballot vote, I think we would find many hypocrits in Mississippi.

[FreedomAngel82]

21. And what will happen to women during the period it's gone?

[cali]

26. Nothing like an ad hominem attack to

further a debate. I'm referring, of course, to your gratuitous "how very republican of you."
Did you go to Naral's report card? Do you understand what happened with the introduction in Casey of the undue burden test? My point is that poor women no longer have much access to abortion, middle class and up, will always have that access. It's only going to get worse. They will continue to gut Roe, so that the states that want to will continue stacking onerous burdens atop onerous burden. The reality, I think, is that they will NEVER overturn Roe. It will simply stay on as a shell, and yes I think that's worse for women than simply overturning it. It's better to have an honest battle in the states, than to have a sham constitutional right. I urge you to check out the Naral report card.

[Sam0724]

27. OK, but is going from "not much access to abortion" to NONE the answer?

I sure hope not. I really hope not. :(

[cali]

29. It wouldn't

You asked, "OK, but is going from "not much access to abortion" to NONE the answer?"

I'm arguing that the status quo wouldn't change much. States like Mississippi and South Dakota, both of which have 1 clinic, have already quashed most access. They might ban it altogether, or legislatures might be tossed out wholesale and replaced with folks who are, at least to some degree, pro-choice. Other states, like mine, wouldn't change at all.

[Sam0724]

36. I completely understand your point, and it brings to light the confusion

that so many have with Roe v. Wade and what it really meant: the access to abortion, not the LEGALIZATION of it.

Interesting idea; but I stand firm in hoping that it doesn't come to that. I also know in my heart of hearts that some serious shit will have to hit the fan to wake some people in this country up.

I am continually appalled that there are not more people in absolute panic at the things that this administration has done and is doing. Yes, something even more major has to happen to wake them up. Lies about WMD's and civil rights violations are sadly not enough. :(

[newyawker99]

57. Hi Sam0724!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[saracat]

28. We shouldn't have to have this battle at all. And if it is overturned,

I an fully prepared to ditch this country. Too many women , my ancestors including my mother , among them fought to give equal rights to women. Our right to determine our healthcare is basic amongst those rights. I will not fight the battle again. If we are that backward a nation, the US doesn't deserve my efforts. I have discussed this with DH and I will not defend or support any nation that makes of me a lesser citizen. JMHO.

[cali]

32. Stay and fight.

You know that there are any number of liberal constitutional scholars that believe Roe was flimsy, at best, regarding it's constitutional roots? I'm not knowledgeable enough to say either way, but if Roe is overturned, it returns the battle to the states. If as I forecast, Roe isn't overturned, but further hollowed out, how is that any better? BTW, I've fought for equal rights, and I'll continue to do so.

[saracat]

42. Umm, afraid I would be too sickened to stay..

I think I would then fell that this country is no longer deserving of my support. It might be different if there were no other countries that valued women but we would be rated as so backward it would be poitless.I guess I mean to say I value my identity and my self worth more than any country! but JMHO. That isn't to say I wouldn't be patriotic or loyal to a nation that values me!:-)

[Maddy McCall]

39. I won't leave. I'll stay and fight, but in a third party.

Indeed, outlawing abortion could make a third party viable for the first time. Many women will abandon the Democratic Party if it refuses to fight for us. I'll take my support to whatever party DOES stand up for us.

Might be time for a revival of the National Women's Party of the late 19th Century. :)

[AZBlue]

51. EXACTLY!

I understand sometimes you have to make sacrifices and do things that appear to be against your cause to win in the long run, but this would have too much bloodshed and death attachd to it (to be blunt). This can not happen!!!

[kiteinthewind]

2. You're probably right, but

my concerns about Alito are about Executive power, civil rights, and discrimination.
:)

[mom cat]

3. And we will have a Neanderthal Supreme Court. Fight Alito while there is

time.

[baldguy]

4. They're never going to overturn Roe.

They'll keep abortion "legal" while making them impossible to obtain.

[sallyseven]

11. There are other methods now

to terminate a pregnancy. RU what ever the number and the morning after pill. Women do have to take responsibility for their own safety and life. It will always be available and some people will always be able to get an abortion. The repukes will not want it overturned. What will they run on their record????

[area51]

20. "What will they run on their record?"

God, guns & gays.

[Maddy McCall]

35. Yep. As I said, too. Abortion is a sticking issue, but it's not the ONLY

sticking issue. Are we to cave on the rights of others, too? I don't think so.

[FreedomAngel82]

22. Yep

I think they'll never do anything. Roberts, I believe, was for the corporations and Alito is for surpreme power such as with the spying. The only other thing they have to run on is gay marriage and way more people are open-minded to it then they want you to believe.

[AZBlue]

53. Excellent point. One we should remember more often.

It's an fabulous tactic used by the Republicans to win the votes of many who would otherwise not support them. They know it's a very emotional issue and one that will get a voter to support them in spite of their own best economic, social and political issue. Those who are on the extreme right of this issue think that this far above all else is the most important issue ever. If Roe were overturned, the Reps would lose a huge rallying point - and lose votes as an outcome.

[Midlodemocrat]

7. There are a lot of people who think this way.

I don't know, frankly. If they do over turn it, how many women will be affected before we can get it back? I do think it would prevent any republicans from getting in at least state wide or nationally for a long, long time, but is it worth the risk?

[Nederland]

13. Answer: Very Few would be affected

The states that would ban abortion if Roe were overturned have already effectively banned through lack of providers.

[Midlodemocrat]

16. Directly, yes, I see your point.

But what about the women who would have chosen to abort and now must raise and support a child they can't? They would be affected as well. What about those who choose to pursue an illegal abortion? I think overturning RvW would give us an incredible boost, but at a terrible price.

[Maddy McCall]

34. The price is not one that we want to pay...and there may be no boost.

There are many people who feel that they can't be Democrats because of the abortion thing. On the other hand, there are women who are Democrats because THIS PARTY championed the right of women to control their own fertility.

The day that Democrats fold on abortion just might be the day that many women, including me, walk away from the party that no longer stands up for my interests.

I just can't imagine it being a price we want to pay--for the reasons you mentioned, and also because that boost might never materialize.

[Maddy McCall]

33. Again, that's bullshit.

I live in Mississippi. We have one clinic, but it's easily accessible for any woman in the state, and it works with women who need abortion, even setting up a payment plan for them, if necessary. The clinic is in the hands of a great group of pro-choice women who work with women in need to see that they get the services they ask for...even if it means helping them find overnight lodging. I would HATE to see those adamantly pro-choice women become completely irrelevant, with the strike of the SCOTUS pen. As long as Roe v Wade exists, we can fight.

There are hoops to jump through. But an abortion can still be obtained IN THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI.

If Democrats allow Roe v Wade to be overturned, to me, that demonstrates their apathy toward women's rights--and women provide a great groundswell of support for the Democratic party. The day that Democrats exhibit that apathy will be the day I become apathetic toward the party that no longer fulfills my needs.

[FreedomAngel82]

23. That's my concern

:\

[Solly Mack]

8. So overturning RvW will do what stolen elections, illegal wars,

torture, the Katrina response, people disappearing, decimated civil rights,spying on people, bad economy, tax cuts for the wealthy on the backs of the poor and ever shrinking middle class, and a disastrous health care initiative didn't do? (anger the people enough to rise up)



And we only have to sell out women to do it. (here's a clue: as it would be primarily women rising up against such a measure - to suggest selling them out won't exactly engender them to the notion)

Riiiiight.

Gee, let's sell out the GLBT community while we're at it.

If we would just disregard human rights completely, accept a police state and embrace profits over people, we'll be just like the thugs and there will never be a "divisive tool" on the table again.

Oh joy! joy!

[kiteinthewind]

9. Point well taken

:think:

[uppityperson]

52. I'm in agreement with you. This would NOT be the thing to bring about...

the big changes we need. Look at all the crap that has happened in the last 6 yrs. Yes, overturning legalized abortions would be one more nail in the coffin, but I do not think it would be big enough to get rid of the rightwingers controlling this country's policies. What will do this is more people dying, more people not being able to afford food, or medicine. Enough people have to be uncomfortable enough for change to happen and I don't think criminalizing abortions will do it.

And, if they do overturn Roe, and if the rightwingers happen to get out of power, we would still have to again pass laws to relegalize abortions. It won't just happen because we get a democratic administration and/or sentate. We'd need the SCOTUS to rerule that they ruled wrongly in getting rid of Roe.

[journalist3072]

10. Sometimes I think Randi Rhodes has a very valid point

When she says that the right-wing will never outlaw Roe v. Wade, b/c it helps them with fundraising.

I think they will continuously chip away at certain aspects of it, and make it harder for women to obtain abortions.

But Roe v. Wade helps the GOP fundraise, and it helps them galvanize their base.

[FreedomAngel82]

24. And they can keep blaming us while they're at it

They'll find someway to blame us for why they didn't do it. But I think people know now days that they are in control of everything. Remember how outraged the fundies were with Miers? They know damn well their power in the republican party and how Bush is supposed to be anyways. Maybe this will open up people's eyes with this whole ordeal and show them how the republicans don't care about it and will stop voting on single issues. Of course there will always be another single issue out there to vote on.

[Nederland]

12. You are right

There are a fair number of moderate female Republicans who only continue to vote Republican because they believe Roe protects them. Take that away and they will switch over. More importantly, I believe that if Roe is overturned we will have a knock down drag out fight over abortion in the legislative area (where it belongs) and that the far right will lose that battle because the majority is pro-choice. The over turn of Roe can only be good for Democratic party.

[Bozvotros]

14. Most states will not outlaw abortions

Even if their legislatures are packed with Pugs. With Medicaid going bankrupt or being cut everywhere and more elderly entering the program, noone is going to want an influx of a large group of newborns, without insurance, premature, underweight, with disabilities, addictions etc. Add a thousand neonatal intensive care bills each year and see how that affects the state's fiscal condition. The abortion issue is just how they planned to pack the courts with rightwing judges who will support corporations and erode civil liberties. How can anyone look at what these slimeball Republicans have done and what they stand for and still believe they give two shits about unborn children?

[donsu]

17. bite your tongue

and do some more thinking

[CountAllVotes]

19. no joke, bite your tongue indeed!!!!

Yeah right overturn Roe v. Wade and then it will be back to the butcher of a "doctor", lots of young women dying from trying to self-abort, etc. etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. :grr:

Too bad only some of us older folks remember when abortion was NOT legal and what extremes some women went to get rid of the fetus which may or may not have been successful. No hospital was available so you had to rely upon the words of other women for advice which were likely very poor bits of "advice".
:argh:

If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, it will be horrible for women in America. Many won't have the money to travel overseas to get a legal abortion and if they carry the child to term, may God help that child for it is not wanted.
*sigh*

Shoving that never wanted child born off on someone else to be adopted and raised as a foster child is not necessarily a guaranteed success story, believe me on that one. I've seen more than enough of the results of these types of scenarios. None of them ever ended up "good". :( :argh:

And yeah, I agree with you donsu, DO SOME THINKING, and make it SERIOUS thinking!

:kick: anyway

[guruoo]

18. I'm not so sure they want to overturn it...

and risk losing the sizable portion of
their base which is pro-choice.
I believe they may just be putting on a show for
the fundies. They'll lay down at the last minute
and blame it all on -guess who!

[Sam0724]

25. I hope that your hope never happens.

Sorry, but the thought makes me ill and it always will. That is not the kind of "hit" that we can afford to take for the team.

There has to be another way.

[Maddy McCall]

30. But you still CAN get an abortion even in MISSISSIPPI. Rant warning.

It may have been whittled, but it ain't gone, as of yet.

I can't believe any pro-choice DUer would wish to see the day that Roe v Wade is completely gone. Just think on that a second. Gone.

I won't even spend my time lecturing WHY that would be detrimental to women. It has class, race, and gender implications that most of us cannot even fathom.

I know that they are attacking Roe v. Wade with needles, a slow death if you will, but IT AIN'T DEAD YET, and women in every state can still get an abortion if they so choose, stumbling blocks be damned.

I don't want my rights to be destroyed just so the right will have one less divisive point. Have you not realized that they have MANY divisive, emotional points on which they can rally? What's next? We allow gays and minorities to lose all of their civil rights, too, just so the right can't divide on those points?

Hell fucking no. I'll stand up and fight. On each and every point. Even though it's unlikely that I will ever need an abortion, I care about the rights of my friends' daughters. I care about the rights of my family members. I care about the rights of women I have not ever met.

The ability to control one's own reproductivity has far-reaching effects. Women who can't do so find themselves economically underprivileged. Indeed, the one thing that men still use against us is that we can't be good workers 'cause we might get pregnant and require time off. It's as archaic as hell, and as long as we can control our own fertility, WE CAN FIGHT. When we hand that off to male legislators, we LOSE.

[Sam0724]

38. I agree. 100%. I don't want this to be the sacrificial lamb.

It's a sick thought. The day will NEVER come that I would "hope" that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. Ever.

:puke:

[Maddy McCall]

40. Thanks, Sam.

And welcome to DU. :toast:

[Sam0724]

41. In fact, the title of this thread makes my stomach turn.

I hope I am not ever a member of a party with this as an aspiring hope.

I am a proud progressive liberal; if a Democratic candidate ever said such a thing - I'd run like the wind.

Thanks for the welcome. I've lurked for a while and was inspired to post when I saw a Feingold post this morning.

He's my guy :loveya:

[saracat]

43. Agreed.

[Maddy McCall]

45. I am proud to be a member of a party with people like you.

You're MY kind of Democrat.

:toast: :pals:

[Sam0724]

46. We can get going on the National Women's Party if the dems really

hold this idea as truth.

Though, my gut tells me they don't.

Just think... www.NationalWomensPartyUnderground.com.... B-)

I should go register that domain name now!

[Maddy McCall]

48. LOL.

If the Dems go spineless on abortion, I'LL register that domain. :hi:

[cali]

44. don't agree

"and women in every state can still get an abortion if they so choose, stumbling blocks be damned."

Codswallop. Women in Mississippi who are poor aren't getting abortions. Frontling recently did a program about this..

Had Roe not been so undercut buy the undue burden test, and if the Supreme Court's makeup was different, I'd agree with you. I understand you don't want male legislators deciding this issue, but the
Court is currently made up of 7 men and 2 women. That's likely to change to 8 men and 1 woman in the very near future. At least we have a chance to vote out legislators.

[Maddy McCall]

47. I live here and I can attest to the fact that women in need can...

receive assistance to have an abortion in Mississippi. But not all women in Mississippi are having abortions in Mississippi.

What YOU have to remember about Mississippi, geographically, is that it's as easy for a woman in Woodville to go to Baton Rouge as it is for her to go to Jackson. It's as easy for a woman in Biloxi to go to Mobile as it is to go to Jackson. It's as easy for a woman in the Delta to go to Memphis as it is to go to Jackson. Not ALL women living in Mississippi choose to have abortions in Mississippi, not because of stumbling blocks, but because of the geography of the state.

And I reiterate, stumbling blocks be damned; women in Mississippi are having abortions when they choose to. I like my alternative--that abortions even with stumbling blocks continue to exist, than your alternative--that we just wholely do away with abortion because we might gain a little political capital from it (which I think is utter bullshit).

[cali]

49. Let me immediately cede that your

knowledge of Mississippi is undoubtedly greater than mine. My knowledge comes from NARAL and PBS. Your is firsthand. If you say that women can get assisstance to obtain an abortion there, I believe you. But I'm curious, what's the source of that assistance. Also did you see the Frontline program on abortion in Mississippi. I reccomend it.

Having said that, let me point out that you're incorrect regarding what I've said throughout this thread. You wrote the following:

I like my alternative--that abortions even with stumbling blocks continue to exist, than your alternative--that we just wholely do away with abortion because we might gain a little political capital from it (which I think is utter bullshit).
 
My alternative is not to do away with abortion. My point made repeatedly is that it's more dangerous for women for Roe to be gutted than overturned and sent back to the states. The undue burden test gives the Justices the latitude to dismantle Roe. I don't know why that's so difficult to comprehend.

[Maddy McCall]

50. How in hell can it be more dangerous for it to be gutted than to...

be overturned?

How old are you? Do you remember what life was like for women prior to RvW?

I have no problem with reading comprehension, by the way. I just can't perceive that having NO RIGHTS is better in some people's minds than having some rights. :shrug:

[cali]

54. You really aren't reading what I'm writing

It's dangerous to lull people into thinking they have a right that they don't actually have. Down right Orwellian, in fact. Don't believe me. That's fine. But I'm hardly the only pro-choice advocate who's making this argument.

I certainly remember life pre Roe. I had an unwanted pregnancy then. I traveled to NY to obtain an abortion. Even so, it wasn't easy.

[Maddy McCall]

55. I am very aware of that point. However, I know of no pro-life activists..

who are proclaiming that they would rather it just be overturned.

It may be "Orwellian" in theory to you. But for women of childbearing age, the option is still there. I understand that having an abortion is more difficult for poor women. Life in general is more difficult for poor women. The middle-class and rich will always have more access to all things in life. But completely axing a right is NOT the solution to the problem. Fixing the problem is the solution.

I have never had an abortion, but I have friends who have. I have been through the process with them--and have loaned them money for the procedure. As long as abortions are available, it is possible to have one. If RvW is overturned, many women in my state will not be able to travel to New York to have an illegal abortion. For those reasons, I believe that RvW should stand, even if it is hobbled.

[DanCa]

31. As a pro neutreal i respectively but strongly disagree with.

There are just so many ramifications that would go along with such and adventure it's not worth the risk of an over turn.

[frankly_fedup2]

56. It will never happen. Why? Simple . . . no court has EVER overturned

a previous Supreme Court's ruling.

Which I find confusing myself. I mean the congress make the laws, right. The Supreme Court interprets the laws.

Why then does there have to be another hearing in front of the SCOTUS? Since the Republicans have the majority party, why haven't they been able to pass this as a law?

I'm confused on how the SCOTUS came about making the decision for this law?????

Any great legal minds on board?????

[frankly_fedup2]

58. No great legal minds on board? That's a shame. Well, I know there

are some great thinkers and posters online. Any idea?