If Roe is overturned

[sable302]

doesn't it have to be done so on the basis of privacy? That meaning, doesn't the congress and the supreme court have to agree that Americans have no right to privacy in order to make abortion illegal?

I just don't see the gun luvin God luvin American middle going for it.

Please tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't really see legal abortion being overturned anytime soon.

On edit: Maybe we shouldn't be as worried about abortion as we seem to be

[liberalpress]

1. "God says overturn it..

... agree or go to Hell, heathen." Or something along those lines. Anyways that's the rationale

[calimary]

30. True, sadly enough. Some of them are completely single-minded

about us "baby-killers."

That's what they call us. That's what they think we're doing. "Killin' babies."

As long as abortion is even nominally available (and believe me, there are plenty of neanderthals out there who don't even care about "life of the mother" issues), that's where they'll be. That's where they'll see us. They won't stop til they get their way. They say god is on their side, so theirs is the correct view and the moral high ground. There is NO WAY to argue any sense into them.

That IS their rationale. And many of them (I know this is incomprehensible to us here, but I believe it's true. I've heard too many reliable testimonials from reliable sources not to take it seriously) further think that bush himself is actually Jesus - or the latter-day messenger of God. I'm surprised they haven't gone to Benny in the Vatican with demands to start the machinery toward sainthood.

I have a good friend and former colleague from the A.P. He told me not long ago about a vacation trip he made back east, to see friends and relatives in the Buy-bull Belt. One guy he said he grew up with turned really spooky when they started talking politics. My friend is liberal. His pal is a knuckle-dragger - who actually looked him straight in the eye and, in all seriousness and even a little horror, said "you CAN'T criticize bush!!! You just can't!!! You don't DARE!!! Don't you realize - he's JESUS! God! You DON'T question JESUS!!!!!!"

My friend recounted this to me, with shock, sadness, and disillusionment in his voice. He knew this guy well enough, and long enough, to take him seriously, and to understand that this poor unfortunate soul was deadly serious. Had drunk the Kool-aid to the point of near-fatal intoxication. And my friend added, feeling rather disturbed about it, that he knew his friend wasn't alone in that.

That's how these people think. Amazingly enough.

[Vincardog]

2. aLIEto is not about ABORTION he is about KING george the UNITARY pResident

[enid602]

5. Georgie

I don't think Georgie could care less about abortion one way or the other; he'll always be able to send the twins across borders should the need arise. Problem is that there are so MANY born-agains who have literally spent their entire lives fighting abortion rights. I don't see them giving up; if anything, their voices will now grow louder. But I would imagine that the Court will chip away at reporductive rights, rather than overturn entire rulings.

[sable302]

10. absolutely

and that's what's so scary about this whole thing. I'm not so sure that we're in and serious danger of losing the right to choose, it's just being used to rile us up. Last I saw on pollingreport.com, only 25% of America favors a ban on abortion.

However, most Americans don't give a care about the unitary executive thing, so I'm not sure how much work we can do on this. I just don't think people really understand the implications.

Privacy, however. I think that if you polled people like this:

'do you think americans have a right to privacy....yes or no...'

you'd get 90% or better 'yes', yet the Republicans want to do away with privacy to change abortion, or wire taps, or whatever. Bush is even worried about his own email privacy (on some thread yesterday, I forget which), yet he says blah to everyone else's.

Democrats need to be the party of privacy and freedom, that's what speaks to America, and what gets votes. It's a fundamentaly moral stand. Maybe it's time to back off from some of the issues we've already won.

[Vincardog]

34. Poll this "Do you believe aWoL is above the law?

15% will Lie down and kiss his royal ass. The rest will answer HELL NO,
"Should the GOP be wiretapping POLITICAL OPPONENTS?" HELL NO
"Who should decide your medical and ethical questions? You 85% The Right Wing NutZ 15%

[William769]

3. If the court rules that abortions are unconstitutional

Congress, doesn't have any say in the matter. Actually If the court rules that abortions are unconstitutional noone has any say in the matter.

[NYC]

7. Abortions were legal in New York before Roe v. Wade.

I don't know what that would mean if Roe is overturned.

[northzax]

12. all the Court can do is say that there is no Constitutional guarantee

to abortion services. the Court CANNOT ban abortions, simply return it to the Congress or the States to do so. It's likely to be a state issue, and some will ban abortion, some won't. just like before Roe.

Worth noting, of course, that Congress will likely make it a Federal Issue and ban them nationally, since they can't seem to keep their hands off any difference between the states.

[tritsofme]

25. The Court CAN do whatever it wants.

A fundie based Supreme Court might rule that abortion is forbidden under the 14th amendment and go further than pre-Roe restrictions.

A Court like we have now would likely toss the issue back to the states like you said.

I think its worth noting that a Court who overturned Roe and turned it back to the states would probably take issue with any ban of abortion on the federal level.

[northzax]

43. edu

it could declare that the Sky is purple, and lo, the sky is purple. But since the decision that legalised Abortion did it at the State level, and since then it has only really dealt with state level decisions, it seems likely that the states would get to regulate the procedure. On the other hand, I don't believe that it should be a state issue, I don't like the idea of states regulating medical procedures (states can certify providers, but I think that since approving pharmeceuticals, medical devices and other procedures happens at the Federal Level that a medical procedure such as abortion belongs at the Federal level as well) If life starts at conception, then life starts at conception in every state. Same thing with assisted suicide, as much as I agree with the theory of the Oregon law (and voted for it at the time) I have come to believe that this is a federal issue.

And I think the Freepers are actually right on one thing here, I think the fascinating thing on this particular court is seeing where Roberts goes, Alito is easy to predict, but Roberts is much more of a cipher, he could do some interesting things over the next 25 years.

[On the Road]

4. Not Exactly

They COULD determine there is no constitutional right to privacy at all. It's an implied right, after all, and is not spelled out in so many words.

But it's a lot more likely that they would decide that abortion is not an exercise of the right to privacy. That's a more straightforward argument, and wouldn't affect things like spying on Americans.

I think Roe v Wade would have been a more solid decision if it were not based on privacy, but on the fact that a fetus up to X weeks is not a human being yet and as a nonperson does not have a legal right to life. That might suggest moving the date back a little from the end of the second trimester, but it would be based on science and avoid some of the misplaced rhetoric.

[pitohui]

9. how can it not be an exercise of privacy?

if what goes on in my body is not a private affair then there is no such thing as privacy, i feel that argument for choice is perfectly sound and straightforward

there is no science to say a fetus is nonhuman, it is demonstrably human and has human DNA from the moment of conception so i don't understand who you would find to argue that a fetus is not a human being "yet"

[On the Road]

20. If the Fetus Qualifies as a Human Being

then the fetus's right to life may (and probably should) trump the right of the mother to privacy. No one has a right to take a human life and defend themselves on privacy grounds.

The Supreme Court recognized this when in the same decision they prohibited third-trimester abortions. Aborting a fetus in the ninth month really is taking a life by almost everyone's standards, and most pro-abortion people wouldn't support it unless the mother's life were in grave danger.

If I understand Roe v Wade correctly, they didn't exactly carry through that reasoning from disallowing third-trimester abortions to, on the other hand, permitting abortions up to six months. To be consistent, they should have argued that before the third trimester, the fetus is not yet a human being and abortion is only taking a potential life. But that's not how they argued, or at least not how Roe v Wade is commonly discussed.

The result is that anti-abortionists are able to show pictures of little fingers and toes and talk about the destruction of innocent lives. When abortionists counter with "choice" arguments, they sound like baby-killers who are trying to change the subject. It is the wrong way to justify abortion. You can make a very good argument for the same abortion rules (or a modified version) by arguing that life is attained only at the seventh month before going on to discuss privacy concerns.

[leftstreet]

6. The issue of privacy hasn't yet been taken to middle America

Roe keeps getting sold as a "sin" issue to the fundies, and as a "woman's" issue to everybody else. The day an NRA spokesperson uses the terms "abortion" and "2nd Amendment" in the same speech, middle America might start thinking WTF?

[Warpy]

8. Overturning Roe will push it back to the states

and the old slave states and the crazier states in the Moron Corridor will likely try to ban safe abortions. What remains to be seen is how much of a mess they'll create by criminalizing their female citizens who cross state lines to obtain a safe, legal abortion. My guess is that it will be a colossal mess, one not seen since the old days of bounty hunters chasing runaway slaves.

I'm just wondering what the corporate will do, since the cheaper half of their workforce will start taking more maternity leaves and costing their health plans (should they still offer them to peons) more money. That's really who should be fighting the end of Roe.

[KansDem]

41. "I'm just wondering what the corporate will do..."

Set up abortion clinics in pro-choice states. It's really surreal when you think about it. Corporations feed money into GOP campaigns, then establish cottage industries in blue states by offering "family panning services" when GOP bans abortions in fundie states.

Think about the possibilities with Madison Avenue gets involved!

Free-choice services (a division of Halliburton)
Offers their "Free Choice Getaway!"

Imagine it!!! Experience it!!!
Three days in (blue state city). Price includes lodging; round-trip airfair;
discount coupons to local merchants...

Golf, shop, and see Las Vegas-type shows, all for only $995 !!!

"Remember 'Free Choice.' Because, after all you are an American!!!

see your travel agent today!

Do I need the "sarcasm" emoticon?

[Chimichurri]

11. it will most like be hobbled then dismantled. Much like our

civil liberties have been. I think a direct assault on Roe would wake the nonvoting sector of the populace up, which the right does not want. The majority of people want Roe to remain intact. Plus, Roe is a great fund raiser for the right - people will actually go vote on this one issue alone. I doubt they'd do anything so blatant as to overturn their cash cow. Stifling Roe in the red states will work as red meat for their bas but most likely it will remain a state issue so the right can continue to trot it out when needed.

A part of me wants them to do a direct assault and outright overturn it. We'll see all these folks who were to busy to care about politics suddenly become engaged. Same is true for a draf, in my mind. Sometimes things have to get so excessively awry for the masses to become mobilized.

[sable302]

14. defending the right to choose

has been a mainstay of the Democratic Party platform for as long as I've been alive.

What if we suddenly declared victory in the war against women's bodies, and nevery mentioned abortion again.

That'd sure take the wind out of their sails, especially since 75% of America wants abortion to remain legal, about the most it's ever been.

I mean, good grief. Sometimes us liberals are as bad as the fundies. We think we have to have 100% of everybody converted before Jesus can come back and we can move on to something else.

[Clark2008]

13. Then women should refile and allege involuntary servitude.

Slavery IS illegal in the United States and I dare the Supreme Court or the Congress to say otherwise.

That wouldn't be a wise move.

[BOHICA06]

that's because

a constitutional amendment was passed - outlawing slavery.

Privacy or abortion needs the same to prevent interference from the USSC.

[Clark2008]

42. Agreed.

That's why if the Supremes overturn Roe v. Wade, we go in with a suit of involuntary servitude: someone else is forcing my body to work and do things I don't want to do.

It's Constitutional and cannot be overturned without a hell of a fight (and ratification, which won't happen).

[wixomblues]

15. It could be on privacy, but more likely, viability.

One of the fallacies of the original decision is that it had language addressing "viable fetus's". Once a State deemed a fetus viable, able to live outside of the womb without the aid of the mother(I may be off on this definition, it's been a while since I studied the case), it could prevent an abortion. As technology develops, so does "viability".

The right to Privacy could be struck down, but it's not really a right, it's part of the "penumbra", and the blanket statement made in the ninth amendment. but there is no right to privacy as a whole. And privacy is a fairly stupid way to justify abortion. Autonomy would make more sense, or a fundamental freedom of reproductive rights without government interference. There's a logic for both, and a precedent for another.

The right to privacy is more or less a don't ask, don't tell sort of thing, and doesn't make sense in the long run. It's easy to disembowel....and disembowel they will.

[sable302]

18. Thanks you for that

Autonomy. That's exactly what I needed to hear. Individual, rights, freedom, autonomy, less government interference, that all feels very good to me, as does privacy, but I get your reservations about it.

The fundies might fight autonomy, but the Republicans won't. Maybe we need to push for an autonomy ammentment in the constitution. That'd sure fry their bacon.

[Ksec]

16. They wont overturn RVW

They just wanna use it to get money. Do you really think they are serious about overturning Roe? I dont. Itll never happen.

[Midlodemocrat]

17. I agree. They won't overturn it.

First of all, they don't have the votes to overturn it and secondly, it is their 'big' issue. What will they use to demonize the left with if they overturn it? The environment?

As long as they can call us terrible names about our pro-choice stance, they are happy.

[Ksec]

19. Yep, its their boogeyman

Take away the boogeyman and the money and votes dry up.

[sable302]

22. Agreed

IT's also the way that they keep people voting against their own best interest. It's all about morality for them. Life may suck with us in control, but if you elect those Democrats, all you'll get is abortions and gay marriage.

[wixomblues]

21. They have the votes.

Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and sometimes Kennedy. He's the new wild card. Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer. Kennedy is the new O'Conner.

Besides, Congress can't pass a law outlawing abortion per se. It will come from a state.

[Midlodemocrat]

23. Read this post of Skinner's from this morning.

I agree with him. They don't have the votes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=280848&mesg_id=280848

[Lars39]

24. One of the justices is near 86 yo and another has had cancer.

These people aren't going to live forever.

[Midlodemocrat]

27. You can't think that way.

No one is going to live forever. The youngest justice could get sick and die before any of the others.

I just don't see them overturning it. They know that most of the American people support a woman's right to choose. They would risk a lot by overturning it. They would never win another election for years.

They use it to demonize us. I had a friend, who is Catholic, like me, ask me how I could support John Kerry, because he is pro-choice? I replied that George Bush and the right wing are pro-fetus. They don't give a rat's ass about that baby once it is born.

And, all that crap about pro-life? Tell that to the Iraqi people.

Sorry, rant off.

But, I still don't think they will do it. Too much to risk.

[Lars39]

33. I don't believe they are really concerned with elections at this point.

They will overturn it, and I'll be wishing I had a nickel for every time....:)

[Midlodemocrat]

37. I hope you are wrong.

Not you, personally, but the idea that they will overturn it.

If they do, what will they call us then? Tree huggers doesn't have the same punch as some of the stuff they called us about our belief in choice.

[wixomblues]

29. Kennedy diminished Roe big time...

Under the last decision, the whole decision was turned on it's head, setting it up for a fall. IMHO


The O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter plurality opinion

Though the plurality opinion stated that it was upholding what it called the "essential holding" of Roe, it did not leave it intact. The plurality emphasized the right to abortion as "grounded in the general sense of liberty" under the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than recognizing a general right to privacy that had been implied in previous cases.

However, the plurality overturned the strict trimester formula used in Roe to weigh the woman's interest in obtaining an abortion against the State's interest in the life of the fetus. Continuing advancements in medical technology meant that at the time Casey was decided, a fetus might be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks that was more common at the time of Roe. The plurality recognized viability as the point at which the state interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the woman and abortion may be banned entirely.

The plurality also replaced the heightened scrutiny of abortion regulations under Roe, which was standard for fundamental rights in the Court's case law, with a lesser "undue burden" standard previously unknown in the Court's case law. A legal restriction posing an undue burden was defined as one having "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

[tritsofme]

28. I think that is incorrect.

Once Roe is gone they get to fight every day to make sure it doesn't come back.

Remember, if you vote for the Democrats, evil old Roe will come back!

Also they would get to rally their base behind a whole host of disgusting anti-abortion laws at the state level, in every state.

[Lars39]

31. Bingo!

[Midlodemocrat]

32. I can see your point, but don't you think other issues

would take precedence? Like the economy, the war?

I can't see people buying into the whole "democrats will bring choice back" if they are out of work or if we are still in Iraq.

I really, really don't think it will happen, but I'm not clairvoyant.

[kenny blankenship]

39. these are people who ALREADY shouldn't be voting republican

because of their economic situation. We're talking mainly about a hardcore of "heartland" rural voters who go to church every Sunday and who're quite poor. (there are other constituencies but this is the bedrock of the antiabortion-Republican vote) Republican economics just screw these people silly, year in, year out. But the Republicans successfully blame the frustration and chaos of their lives on wikkid Democratic constituencies in the big city--havin' abortions and anal sex and intermarrying and so on.

They really do listen to this madness--they eat it up.

Could they be motivated, after the end of Roe, by further battles over abortion (stamping it out in all circumstances and in all countries) or by other essentially religious issues like school prayer or contraception, or a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, or a war to protect the "Holy Lands" against Haji, the Terrible Terrorist?
You betcha!

[kenny blankenship]

35. Tell that to the religiously insane who believe Scalito's confirmation

means exactly this--the end of Roe v. Wade.
Sooner or later these people have to be paid off with reversal of Roe, or they'll turn on their Republican allies.

[kenny blankenship]

26. congress and the supreme court have to agree that Americans have no right

to privacy...

Nah--not Americans, just women. Men will still have a right to privacy in their confidential relationship with their doctors.
Women on the other hand will have "community watch" signs posted on their uteruses.
Every snoopy old curmudgeon will be watching those wombs for evidence of illegal doin's. And remember: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have to have new, more restrictive standards for newer and more restrictive laws. Just you buy a bottle of distilled vinegar down at the supermarket on your debit card and see how fast the Uterus Patrol arrives at your door to make sure everything in your ladyparts is still legal and "up to code".

There could be full many a preemptive police action on uteruses suspected of not disclosing all their programs, intentions and items. In the rush to protect life whereever it might be imagined to be many could be swept up, suspected of harboring sleeper cells.

[Kazak]

36. Roe is the least of our concerns with this guy...

Not to say that it isn't A concern, of course...

[robbedvoter]

38. lemme guess; You're a guy, have no daughters. Like Nader (he too

was assuring us in 2000 that GOP would NEVER do that)
How very cavalier of you all to not worry too much about our rights!
Mind you, I know Alito is the disctatorship judge - and Roe vs Wade will be only one of many civil rights we are about to lose. Give ours up boys - I assure you that something close to you is about to come on the chopping block very, very soon.

[JorgeTheGood]

40. Texas redistricting

The first major hit will be the Texas redistricting scheduled for March.

Before Alito there was somewhat of a chance Delay's redistricting would be found unconstitutional and the SCOTUS would order the '06 elections to be held IAW the old map which would put 6 seats back in the hands of the dems -- that's how many seats the dems lost due to the new map.

Now -- the new map will stay and the chance for the dems to take back the house will have slipped away, strenghtening our position notwithstanding.

They can flip the Roe switch anytime they want -- first things first.