| Should Roe v Wade be overturned? |
| Yes |
|
54% |
[ 6 ] |
| No |
|
45% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 11 |
|
| Author |
Message |
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
 Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:12 pm Activists on both sides weigh future of Roe |
|
Activists on both sides weigh future of Roe
| Quote: | 
NEW YORK - Undoubtedly, there would be tumult � likely roiling every statehouse in the nation. Beyond that, little is certain about what would unfold if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the divisive 1973 decision establishing a woman�s right to have an abortion.
Reversal remains only a hypothesis for now, yet both sides in the abortion debate are discussing the demise of Roe as an increasingly serious possibility. President Bush�s nomination of conservative Samuel Alito to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O�Connor heightens the prospect of tighter restrictions on abortion, and another vacancy could occur any time that might tip the balance on Roe itself.
Roe�s reversal would not outlaw abortion nationwide; the issue would revert to the states, with patchwork consequences. Some states would likely ban almost all abortions, others would allow them to continue unfettered, and a middle group might impose restrictions that would make abortions harder to obtain.
If the pre-Roe past is any guide, affluent women in states with bans would likely find ways to have safe abortions, either traveling to a no-ban state or hiring a doctor willing to flout the law. Abortion-rights activists say poor women would have fewer recourses; some might resort to using cheap, widely available abortion-inducing medicines that didn�t exist before Roe.
�What an appalling thought � American women reduced to going outside the health care system and acting like they�re in a Third World country,� said Dr. Wendy Chavkin, a Columbia University professor who chairs Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.
Unintended political consequences?
The political consequences of Roe�s reversal would be complex � and perhaps awkward for some Republicans. Roe has been a longtime target of conservative candidates and advocacy groups; its disappearance would shift the battleground to state legislatures where the actual banning of abortion might trouble some swing voters.
�I�m sure there are some Republicans who�d prefer not to deal with it,� said Bill Saunders, a bioethics expert with the conservative Family Research Council. �Sometimes politicians like to slough off issues to Supreme Court, and criticize the court and not have to deal with it themselves.�
Some anti-abortion groups seek to minimize the immediate impact of Roe�s reversal, suggesting that abortion initially would remain legal in all but six or seven states with pre-Roe bans still on the books.
In contrast, the Center for Reproductive Rights says abortion access would be at high risk in 21 states, notably in the Southeast and Great Plains.
The center�s president, Nancy Northup, noted that South Dakota lawmakers passed a bill this year that would automatically outlaw most abortions if Roe were overturned.
�It�s going to get ugly�
In some heartland states, however, moves to ban abortion could trigger political free-for-alls.
�I don�t know what�s going to happen � except it�s going to get ugly,� said Susan Hays, a Dallas attorney who has defended abortion rights in Texas courts.
Peter Brownlie, executive director of a Planned Parenthood branch serving Kansas and Missouri, said most voters even in those conservative states support some abortion rights.
�It�s interesting to speculate what kind of backlash might occur if Roe were overturned,� Brownlie said. �I suspect a lot of people who�ve been on the sidelines would bring pressure on their political representatives not to take draconian steps.�
�You could call it a patchwork, but it�s democracy in action,� said attorney Clarke Forsythe of Americans United for Life. �The two or three or four sides of the issue would duke it out, and at the end of the day the legislature votes. Public opinion would be better reflected in public policy.�
Searching for a middle ground
Forsythe predicts that only a few states would ban most abortions or allow them virtually unrestricted. The rest, he said, would form a middle ground, imposing restrictions that would reduce U.S. abortions from the current level of nearly 1.3 million annually.
Restrictions might include banning abortions after the first trimester, narrowing the grounds on which women can get late-term abortions for health reasons, and tightening parental-involvement laws that many states already use to curtail minors� abortions.
Some anti-abortion activists aren�t clamoring for reversal of Roe because of the probability that many states � including New York and California � would still allow abortions. Hard-liners instead want a federal Human Life Amendment criminalizing all abortions; such a measure would need two-thirds support in the House and Senate, then ratification by 38 state legislatures.
�That�s not a realistic scenario,� Forsythe said.
Fears for poor women, teenage girls
Although abortion-rights leaders believe most women would retain access to abortions after Roe�s reversal, they worry that new bans and laws would dangerously narrow the options for poor women and teenage girls. �We�d return to women being maimed and killed by resorting to self-abortion and illegal abortion,� Brownlie said.
Chavkin, the Columbia professor, said the so-called back-alley abortions of the pre-Roe era might be replaced by self-performed abortions using the readily available drug misoprostol.
Approved since 1988 to treat ulcers, misoprostol is one of two drugs that make up the so-called abortion pill. Chavkin said it can end a pregnancy when used alone, but with a higher complication rate and lower success rate than when used with the other drug, mifepristone.
Misoprostol�s availability means abortion would remain a viable, though risky, option even in states that imposed post-Roe bans, Chavkin said.
�The Pandora�s box is open,� she said. �The anti-abortion forces can make life harsh, they can harass people and make them feel crummy. But they can�t stop this. On some level they�ve lost already.�
� 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. |
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:46 am |
|
To answer the poll question, yes. But only if the pro-overturn argument is better layed out, even though my thought is yes, anyways.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:28 am |
|
I voted no. I agree that abortion should be...not restricted, but monitored almost. It shouldn't under any circumstances be used as birth control. But the consequences of overtuning it would be horrible.
Some people who want to overturn it have this idealistic view that unwanted children will get adopted. But the American adoption system is overcrowded as it is.
Not to mention women will revet to what they did prior to Roe v. Wade, which is even more sickening that a safe, sanitary abortion abortion conducted by a real doctor.
Women have been having abortions long before Roe. The only thing the ruling did was make it legally acceptable and safer for the mother.
I apologize if that was a bit disjointed, but the issue frustrates me to a point where I have a hard time spitting out my opinions.
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:16 am |
|
I am against people having abortions personally, but i wouldn't remove the choice for other to do it. Why should i push personal opinions on others.
Overturning it would do more harm that good
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:58 am |
|
I am against people having abortion. It is murder in my opinion.
|
|
|
Brightstar82
Rear Admiral
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 4394
Location: A Borg Cube....Where Else?
|
| Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:41 pm |
|
I agree Im against abortions to I think its cruel . If a baby isnt wanted they should be put up for adoption not aborted. Its just wrong 
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sun Nov 06, 2005 1:06 pm |
|
| Leo Wyatt wrote: | | I am against people having abortion. It is murder in my opinion. |
| Brightsar82 wrote: | | I am against people having abortion. It is murder in my opinion. |
Perhaps, but the fact remains that regardless of the legality of the option, women will still perform abortions now that the medical means of doing so is available and has been available for quite some time.
It's fine to think that abortion is wrong and that it shouldn't be legal, obviously, but the practical implementation of such an ideology would have to be carefully thought out in order to do any good. The first steps would probably involve closer monitoring of abortions, et cetera, in order to get more control over the system.
But the state-to-state thing is quite interesting, because it adds yet another dynamic. If Roe versus Wade gets overturned, then that means it reverts to the states to make these decisions. So ironically, overturning the landmark ruling might just lengthen the struggle for outlawing abortion totally.
Yeah, it's stupid that the law works that way. I can see myself on the against-abortion side of the fence, muttering about how all that red tape makes it difficult to Do the Right Thing. :/
|
|
|
Brightstar82
Rear Admiral
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 4394
Location: A Borg Cube....Where Else?
|
| Sun Nov 06, 2005 1:40 pm |
|
I totally agree with you there 
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:09 pm |
|
| CJ Cregg wrote: | I am against people having abortions personally, but i wouldn't remove the choice for other to do it. Why should i push personal opinions on others.
Overturning it would do more harm that good |
Exactly. No matter how imoral or cruel as abortions may be, the implications of overturning the ruling would complicate the matter even more, and cause more even deaths.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:16 pm |
|
I really am not for abortion at all. Of course, there are always extreme circumstances, where exceptions should be made. But for the record, I am basically against abortion.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:58 pm |
|
Abortion is only advocated by those who have not been aborted.
Abortion is a violation of almost every amendment in the constitution, since it removes a human of ALL rights.
|
|
|
Tyvek
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Jul 2001
Posts: 2821
Location: Mississippi, USA
|
| Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:59 pm |
|
Well I am Catholic and for religious benefit I am Pro-Life� But I also carry the argument that many women feel that it is their choice to abort a pregnancy. I disagree it was your choice to not use protective measures to ensure that a child would not be conceived, but even then you knew the risks when you pt yourselves in the situation to possibly end up impregnated. No in the cases of rape that result in pregnancy I am also against that, that innocent child did not ask for violence to bring it into being, there are plenty of parents out there who would love to adopt these children, let�s do something other than kill them.
Now on the other side, If we are to keep Abortion legal we must also overturn every law that states that if a murder is committed against a pregnant woman and results in the death of the fetus, then the man can not get any repercussions from the death of the fetus, because technically according to Roe v Wade it is not a life, it can be destroyed. So how Pro-Choice people can let Scott Peterson get Double Murder when their own beliefs said he only killed one person. We as a nation need to get rid of the dag gum double standards and just start doing things that make sense�
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:00 pm |
|
The Political consequences of the overturning of roe v wade will be astronomical. All hell will break loose between the 2 sides. Think the country is divided now? Just wait and see how divided it will be if its overturned
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:11 pm |
|
It would be for the better, though, in the sense that it would end government-sanctioned murder.
EDIT: And I don't think it would divide the country as you say, however. Maybe there would be fringe groups extremely angry at this, but most wouldn't be so angry, as long as there were extreme circumstances provided for.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:26 pm |
|
Mm. I have to agree with Craig here. It would be nuts if Roe v. Wade was overturned. I can only imagine the protests, the spitting anger... these people believe it's a right to do this. People don't just take having their "rights" stripped away quietly.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:35 pm |
|
I see no reason why the right of a woman to not have a baby is more important than ALL the human rights that the baby would be stripped of. I could imagine the protests, but thngs would eventually die down, at least for the most part--there would always be those protestors like there are now. But the rights of the baby are more important than the right of a woman to not have that baby--when she knew the consequences of her actions. (Although, again, I support it in three circumstances--rape, chance of death, or MAJOR defect in the baby.)
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Tyvek
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Jul 2001
Posts: 2821
Location: Mississippi, USA
|
| Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:37 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: | | People don't just take having their "rights" stripped away quietly. |
I'm curious... If I shoot and kill you should I go to jail for murder? Well according to that statement I have a right to kill you and at this moment the govenment has stripped that right away... mainly because you have a right to live. I don't see how anyone can say that an entity does not have the right to live, I just can't fathom it.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:41 pm |
|
I'm not talking about what I think, or about the minority of people who believe murder of another grown individual is okay. I'm just saying that there are a lot of people who believe fetuses are not "life," that they are the woman's body or just cells or soul-less or whatever you want to call it. A whoooooooooole lot of people who believe this is a fundamental right. This isn't going to go away. Right or wrong, I'm not arguing that. The fact that is would re-awaken bitterness, that it would make people biting, horribly mad, is what I'm alluding to. Maybe you live in a reality where everyone will eventually believe what you think. I just don't see that happening. No matter what happens, this thing is going to be debated and scrapped over.
Again, not saying it would be awful if it were restricted further or abolished. That's a philosophical question. I'm talking ramifications.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:45 pm |
|
And I don't find the ramifications significantly important. It's the life of the unborn child that is more imptant. This is far from a fundamental right, and most people don't think that it's a fundamental right. Most are like me, I believe. They believe that abortion should be allowed in extreme circumstances. Only the fringe believes that it should be allowed all the time, unfeddered, and an almost-fringe believes that it should be completely abolished, under any circumstances.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:49 pm |
|
But I didn't say the ramifactions outweigh the outcome. Nor did I call it a fundamental right.  No twisting my words. But okay...if you believe most people are like you, your logic is quite valid. I just see it as closer to a split idea on this issue. To different degrees, sure, but there's one huge block that won't like changes in abortion policies...from what I see. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:53 pm |
|
I think that that's the fact that you live in such a liberal state that you think that, and what the media portrays. I really do sincerely believe that most Americans are like me here. All non-far left liberals that I have talked to either agree with me or go a step further than me. Therefore, if there were some way to do that--to overturn it and then institute a law for extreme cicumstances--then so be it; I would like that. It might even be a states' rights issue more than anything else, but I don't know...Either way, keep in mind that Roe now opposes abortion as well. 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:55 pm |
|
I'm aware that Roe has changed, too. I would point out that you live in a rather conservative state, so your outlook may be a tad skewed too. I think the making it a states' issue is intriguing, but if you consider it murder, then I don't think it would be up to the states.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:58 pm |
|
Colorado, sadly, may be a conservative state, but, I must now admit, is barely so. We lost a House seat, lost the Senate race, and lost both houses of the state legislature. Not that conservative. Plus, I've talked with people out of state as well--I'm from back east, you know , and most people I know aren't that conservative. Not even close to me, anyways, and they tend to agree.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:02 pm |
|
*shrugs* As I said, we'll certainly see if and when this happens.
I am curious about the idea of turning it over to states. I'm wondering what kind of support or disdain that would find if the issue were more widely debated. I really haven't heard that idea stated very often...almost always I hear abortion as a national issue.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
