Democrats & Liberals Archives

Legal or not: Who really wins when Roe vs. Wade is overturned

With the upcoming Supreme Court justice nomination hearings beginning soon, the debate over abortion and abortion rights will, rightfully so, come to the forefront of the many, many discussions across this nation.

At issue will be Alito’s judicial opinion of satisfied precedent with regards to Roe vs. Wade. Although Alito’s prior writings suggest a significant pro-life leaning with opinions supporting the reversal of Roe vs. Wade, his judicial opinions are not widely known.

What's at stake?

Firstly, it's fairly obvious that both sides of the debate would benefit from Roe vs. Wade staying legal. Both sides seem to have far too much to lose if the decision switches.

Right-To-Life (RTL) has many affiliates throughout each state and even though they are listed as a non-profit organization, protected by not paying taxes, they do not disclose their membership numbers, or their annual budget. RTL does have a 12-station, in-house telemarketing center, where 20 fund-raisers work in shifts, Monday through Saturday. So, one can only imagine the millions of dollars flowing through this organization on a daily basis. If they overturn Roe vs. Wade, their mission would be significantly altered. It would be a stretch to believe that financial support for this pro-life fight would continue with a victory. I don't think 'keep fighting to keep it legal' will warrant the same support from its current backers

NARAL also rakes in big bucks; they have an operating budget in excess of $10MM (link). The majority of the dollars are coming from grants, which may mean that after the overturning the grants may go away as well, significantly changing what message the organization can put out.

What would happen if Roe vs. Wade was reversed?

Would Pro-Life stop as an organization, satisfied in a battle well won?

Would NARAL begin the long road of fund raising and public awareness events required to create a big enough public support to pressure the representative government to change the laws back again?

In any case, abortions will not end.

Pre-1973 numbers suggest that regardless of whether or not Roe vs. Wade is legal or not, abortions will continue at significant rates. And using simple math, I can safely assume that the number of illegal abortions will be around 300-500k per year, adjusted, of course, for the increase in population. The only difference would be that these abortions would be illegal.

Who do you listen to?

The Pro-life movement seems to imply that should Roe vs. Wade be overturned, abortions would cease. That's just not true or accurate by any stretch of the imagination.

The Pro-Choice movement also seems to feel more women will die from back-alley abortions if Roe vs. Wade is overturned; that also is incorrect. Because, while abortions were illegal, an estimated number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year.

The only real change would be an possible increase in the deaths associated with mothers undergoing the procedure illegally.
We would have to be realistic about the numbers maternal deaths. Because, all too frequently the Pro-Choice movement has put forth misleading numbers to support this assertion.
In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women representing nearly one-fifth (18%) of all maternal deaths recorded in that year. However since then the death toll declined steadily to just under 1,700 by 1940. In fact, a study suggested that by 1950 just over 300 died (due most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). However, these numbers represent deaths officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher, as many, many illegal abortions were not performed by doctors. (During the early days, licensed doctors commonly performed abortion under the radar).
It's also known that poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. Studies suggested in the 1960s found that only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.
There's also data to support the fact that there is significant increase of mortality because of illegal abortion combined with racial lines: In New York City in the early 1960s, 25% of childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion; while, abortion accounted for 50% of childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women.
I think it's safe to say that abortions wouldn't stop whether or not it's legal or not. The two major players on opposite sides of the arguments really have little to gain from overturning Roe vs. Wade. So who really would benefit? It appears that we know that the poor and the minorities will be hurt by this. But who really benefits?

Posted by john trevisani at January 6, 2006 3:43 PM
Comments
Comment #110710

If you repeal Roe nothing happens. The overturning would just ALLOW states to make new laws. It does not make abortion illegal. It just lets the states decide. It goes back into the political process and to the states.

If you believe that the majority of the people are against you, that the people’s representatives will ennact a ban and if you distrust the democratic process, you should be afraid.

What you would probably get is abortion available but with some restrictions, which more or less reflects the majority of Americans’ views. Some states would have easier, some stricter laws. There would be plenty for both sides to complain about and they could work through the democratic process to make changes.

Posted by: Jack at January 6, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #110711

Well “who would benefit” is easy.

The Baby! Duh. :)

Posted by: have_a_beer at January 6, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #110715

yeah, forcing unwed teenagers to have babies will really produce great generation of youngsters. Their lives will be just swell. Good thing they don’t give out those evil condoms in the high schools.

You know who benefits from outlawing abortion under all circumstances? Wal-Mart. There’s no other employer who will so easily absorb all the high-school dropout single moms.

Posted by: macsonix at January 6, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #110725

macs

WMT won’t hire them, the health care costs of infants is too high.

Posted by: Dave at January 6, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #110726

Just remember most women who have abortions already have at least one child and many are married. They main reason many women have an abortion is economic NOT rape or incest.

With many high-schools day-care centers and tutoring, there is no need for teenager to drop out. For those young women that do drop out, usually they would have anyway and raising “their baby” is just an excuse. sad but true.

If unwed teenagers benefit wall-mart why can you buy condoms there? and at such a discount, too

Posted by: have_a_beer at January 6, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #110727

Jack,

So you want to go back to the good old days of:
Got $$$$, go to another state.
Got crap, go to the alley.

Nice abuse of democracy there.

Posted by: Dave at January 6, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #110740

Dave,

explain “abuse of democracy”?

Posted by: have_a_beer at January 6, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #110741

any reduction in the Supreme Courts decision i.e. giving states regulatory rights concerning abortion,should go hand in hand with legislation that makes people prove that they are fit to concieve and raise a child to begin with.

Posted by: jblym at January 6, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #110743

I doubt Roe will ever be overturned, and I don’t believe that Republican politicians actually desire such a change, anyway.

The majority of the public support the Roe decision. While “fighting” for change garners the support of those who are opposed to abortion, any actual attempt to put significant restrictions upon the practice would probably be unpopular, politically.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 6, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #110753

any reduction in the Supreme Courts decision i.e. giving states regulatory rights concerning abortion,should go hand in hand with legislation that makes people prove that they are fit to concieve and raise a child to begin with.

Posted by: jblym at January 6, 2006 05:04 PM

And who’s going to set the standard? Do you really trust politicians that far?

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 6, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #110771

macsonix:
Maybe if abortion were returned to the states for control(where it should be), the people would have a say in whether their 15 year old could have an abortion without consent but not have her ears pierced or a tattoo. It might also happen that the 15 year would think before engaging in activities that result in pregnancy. Studies have shown that most abortions are not for health reasons, but are used as a form of retroactive birth control.

It might also happen that many women would go through the psychological trauma of living with the fact that they killed their baby.

Posted by: jback at January 6, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #110779

Here’s the problem with repealing Roe v. Wade. Some things were just not meant to be susceptible to the democratic process. We see a lot of those things falling by the wayside in recent years, such as the erosion of protections against police, privacy interests, free speech and information interests, and other clearly-guaranteed constitutional rights. The reversal of Roe would serve mostly to allow for a majority, no matter which side it was on, to legitimize abortion or to prohibit it. In this situation now, nobody is forced to be part of the political process that results in abortion. Since to regulate abortion would in essence force women into 9-month slavery with no choice in the matter, it is not susceptible to legislation. We should learn from this example and set a heck of a lot more things beyond the reach of the whim of the “people.”

Posted by: Libertyman13 at January 6, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #110790

I have long believed that the only people who will be hurt by Roe v Wade being overturned would be the poor. Personally as long as I am alive if anyone in my family needs an abortion then we will go to a civilized country to obtain one.
The Republicans don’t mind giving the religious right this bone because they feel the same way. Their families with go to Europe or Canada to obtain an abortion if one is needed.

It will again fall back on the poor.

I believe the religious right is interested in
taking women out of the public and forcing them back home under the thumb of whatever man.

They have already started the fight to make birth control more difficult to get and eventually impossible to obtain. Witness the push to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because of their religious beliefs. This push will get more intense once they overturn Roe v Wade.

No woman can have a life without birth control unless she is a nun. There aren’t many of those, so then she is sentenced to a short hard life of pregnancy after pregnancy. My daughter is complaining after 2 pregnancies in a row. I told her to get used to it. She is a republican.

Dependent on a man to provide all of her income because she can’t work; she is dependent on the kindness of her husband and not all of them are as evolved as the readers of this blog. She will be dependent on the man because of the stress of continual pregnancy on her body and because if you have more than one child you can’t afford childcare. Last I heard that was at least 150.00 per week for one baby.

Most of the religious right is white, poor and male. The women go along because they don’t want to hurt babies. Read fetus’. They believe fetus’ have souls at conception. Personally working in NICU’s for 16 years I didn’t see anybody home much before 32 weeks. Just my opinion.

As for the opinion, that each state will then have a choice whether or not to make abortion illegal, there are more red states then blue and even in blue you can make so many laws ruling on who can have an abortion and in what circumstances that it is effectively illegal.

That is what the religious right is doing right now with Roe v Wade in effect. Soon it will not matter whether or not Roe v Wade is overturned or not.

I personally believe the religious right will not stop until women at a home and powerless and gays are either in jail or waaaay back in the closet and white men solely in control of the USA again.

Until the religious right is crushed and forced back to the fringe where they belong, anyone but white males will be in danger for one reason or another.

Posted by: cate at January 6, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #110795

the religious right is crushed and forced back to the fringe

I don’t think that will happen in the near future, they’ve weathered scandals and ridicule and their own extreme stupidity.

The political problem created by Roe v Wade is that it divides the democratic party from so many people that normally support it. I know people who are active in the anti-abortion movement who still vote for democrats, because they support the democratic party on everything but this single issue. They are also suspicious of what kind of people Rpblcns are. A person believing that another person should not have control of their own body and life is such a strange concept to me that I don’t see how any common ground could ever be reached. When I lived in Florida, a new constitution was adopted with a right to privacy included. More states should add this to their constitutions.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at January 6, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #110798

—-
“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy,” - court opinion for Roe vs Wade
—-

This is based within the right to privacy. Are we willing to overturn privacy rights to halt legal abortions? Also, abortion rates are dropping, so wouldn’t the best way to rid the world of abortion is for the demand to cease?

I also agree with the above post - the REPs do not really want to overturn Roe vs Wade, it’s just a rallying cry for the religious right. Even something as simple as Bush’s faith-based initiative was never truely funded (or fund were never spent.) The REP leadership is pro-business, but they need the religious right to help hold their power. It’s kind of the same with the DEMs and environment… never going to be truly acted on, just a hot-button issue to keep us voting the right way.

Posted by: tony at January 6, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #110802

Jack is 100% correct. The states would be responsible. Many conservatives do like the Roe decision because it is the most egregious example (after abolishing the death penalty) of supreme court writing laws and not apply the law. To allow a group of people, no matter how smart and well intentioned to decided what is good for everyone it tyranny. Personally, I don’t like because it lets politicians cop out. I would love to see where some of the pro-life (not all) would actually vote.

I get a kick out how today’s Liberals view a supreme decision (really and edict) to allow the killing of babies is the most fundamental right American’s have and if it were to be overturned not only would women be dying by thousands, and we will be living a theocracy.

Like the gun control debate, many benefit from keeping the debate (great post idea john) going and the vast majority of American’s opinion falls and vote somewhere in the middle. In the case of abortion, if we did not have 5 self-appointed legislators in 1973, there might actually be real laws on this to ensure the safe performance of what is a medical procedure—and we must be honest the death of a potentially great person.

Posted by: have_a_beer at January 6, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #110806

have-a-beer:

You hardly sound like the person who should be explaining the way liberals think or perceive things. You are conservative? Yes? Then stick with that and debate from that perspective. Anytime you start preaching about such generalities as ‘how today’s liberals’ think, your arguments immediately loose credibility.

—-
Many conservatives do like the Roe decision because it is the most egregious example (after abolishing the death penalty) of supreme court writing laws and not apply the law.
—-

Roe vs Wade is based on teh 14th Amendment. How do you get the idea that the Court wrote an Amendment?

I also find it interesting that you tie in the abortion issue with gun rights… so I hardly think your stance is strictly ‘right to life.’ I’d also be curious to hear your points of view on Terry Shaivo.

If you truly want to know how a liberal thinks, ask.

Posted by: tony at January 6, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #110807

I don’t like abortion, and I think the best way to reduce it’s usage is through comprehensive sexual education.

I am not certain whether or not I agree with the Roe v. Wade decision, but the fact is that it has been upheld despite having a Court that is made up of SEVEN Republican-appointed Justices. These folks are not “liberals.”

I also think this “legislating from the bench” business is a fallacy. Courts have ALWAYS ‘made law,’ even before the creation of this country. Courts make decisions that legislators have not. Our Supreme Court interprets our Constitution.

I know there are many of the belief that this is a simple task and that there is one obvious ‘interpretation’ of any clause in the document. Five minutes of reading some of their decisions will show that this is simply not the case.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 6, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #110818

Have_a_beer,

Your post:

>>>”Well “who would benefit” is easy.

>>>The Baby! Duh. :)

>>>Posted by: have_a_beer”

Leaves a huge unanswered question:

At what point does the moment of conception become a “baby”?

Some will say it’s the moment of conception, which explains blocking approval of the morning after pill, etc.

Others will say it’s not until the moment the first breath is taken.

I personally think that Justice Blackmun was wrong with the whole tri-mester thing. If left to me personally I would cut off abortion at about 5 months other than to protect the mother. But that’s my personal belief based on science and silly stuff like that.

But, without Roe V. Wade, how many hoops would we make a woman jump through to get that late term (or any other) abortion.

This is a huge problem that will face America forever because the answer is as diverse as our culture and our religious beliefs.

I just find it sad that the Democratic Party has become synonymous with pro-abortion. That’s simply not true. The “pro-choice” scenario has been bastardized by the right to the point that all Democrats are pro-abortion. Just not true.

To my knowledge blocking third trimester abortions has only met opposition because the lawmakers have failed to provide protection for the mother if her life is in danger.

This is a huge problem. In my opinion it’s a problem that should be resolved by a woman, her choice of counsel (be that family, clergy, or professional), and her choice of doctors.

In many ways it’s like prohibition of alcohol. We know that the use of alcohol causes social problems (such as spousal and chid abuse) along with both physical and mental health problems. But the prohibition of alcohol caused larger problems than the consumption of alcohol.

Before Roe v. Wade the rich simply went “on vacation” to Europe. The upper middle class went to Canada or Mexico. The lower middle class & poor went to some low life back alley dude that got kicked out of med school or someone that couldn’t hold a job at the veterinary clinic because he couldn’t stay sober enough to work on animals.

History reveals many answers to those who open their eyes. Here’s an idea: since DNA has proven to be so conclusive, let’s stop abortion but require the castration of all men that father illegitimate children.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! That’s way out there. Then it becomes a “guy thing”.

KansasDem


Posted by: KansasDem at January 6, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #110820

It’s also important to consider just how much we want to allow the government to meddle in the lives of pregnant women.

In my opinion, a fetus that depends upon the mother’s life to exist does not have any rights under the law, and should not.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 6, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #110831

I simply can not help but comment on this. I suppose we all agree that there is no room for Washington in our bedrooms, doctor’s office etc… I say leave roe v wade the way it is. As has been stated, abortions will continue purhaps not as many but they will. Why should personal moral issues be desided in the courts. Bottom line is that. Personally I think abortion is wrong. I believe that there is a way of having a life, and not taking one. I believe that not all young people that become parents are “bad” just because of age. But not being God I can’t deside that for everyone. So leave that very personal decision to those that have it to make and leave it at that. In other words keep the (bleep) out of other peoples private business. Out of other peoples bedrooms, and Dr’s office.

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at January 6, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #110834

Legal or not: Who really wins when Roe vs. Wade is overturned. John, the real question is who looses??

Many of you already know I am completely opposed to even the mere possibility that Roe vs. Wade could be over-turned.

For those of you who don’t know, I wrote a while back about how my mother died at the age of 42, when I was 14 because she hemorrhaged from an illegal abortion. Needless to say that did not make my life better. I was one of the many children raised in the environment of the ‘unwanted child’. For me this was the Sixties.

My father detested me because I was not a boy, I had a blue goose baby sign at the hospital when I was born, he enrolled me in school as a boy, and he told me frequently enough that as a female my wires were crossed, and he thought the only thing females were good for was having babies. I was raised with idea that while a prostitute costs more in the beginning, a wife costs more in the long run. As he put it, “whores are easier to get rid of than wives.” He died at the young age of 56, a very bitter man, whose only life was his work. Unfortunately he was also a five o’clock and weekend drunk.

Oh, I almost forgot, my mother was the youngest daughter of one my state’s Chief Superior Court Judges, and my father, also a ‘blue-blood’, was a very highly respected surgeon. While neither was wealthy, both were highly educated - my father had 9 areas of medical expertise, and 8 majors in college, my mother had 3 college majors. However, when their marriage fell apart, shorty after my birth, it no longer mattered who they were, but more what they could do to hurt each other, including using me a ping-pong ball, for the first 14 years of my life. Both of them were alcoholics, and my mom had multi-personality disorder and was dependant on any drug she could find. She also tried to kill me with a butcher knife when I was 4. It took my father 5 years to gain my custody, and take me away from my mother and , oh , yes, her many boyfriends. One would think that he fought for me out of love, but as I quickly learned, the battle had nothing to do with me at all. He just couldn’t bear being beaten by a female. He also liked making new law. It gave him a feeling of being famous. I don’t even want to think about my step-mother.

To put it nicely I have spent a great deal of time, not to mention money, learning how to let a man touch me without screaming (good step if one wants to marry and have kids), learning not to jump simply because someone picks up a sharp knife, dealing with the out-dated idea that left me in isolation - no friends because the children can’t/won’t play with me because they might ‘catch’ my mother’s mental illness,(these ideas came from parents), sleeping through the night in my bed instead of the closet, and not literally hitting any of my children when they woke me at night, sick.

My husband finally moved into the guess bedroom because I constantly hit him in a sleep. I just wish the nightmares of being involved in my mother’s first abortion would recede.

The age of 6 is not the time to start practicing medicine - regardless of how frighten you are that the cops will remove you if you tell anyone. Oh and my husband finally moved out after trying to put up with my strange ideas - I still awake and need to wash the sheets immediately,(frequently during the middle of the night) because I’m certain they have bugs on them.

You see, people, there are many repercussions to abortions - not only do the mothers have to live with the decisions, so do the children. I’m not too sure how the fathers are affected, but I’m sure some of the, are very affected.

I AM glad that I was able to have and care for my children, and hopefully didn’t pass down the blue-prints that were passed down to me. But ever since they were born I’ve been terrified I’d accidentaly hit them, lose my temper, or simply just do something to mess with their lives. They were strongly affected by my near chronic depression. All three are in some sort of therapy.

The only nice thing is I haven’t been in therapy for almost 4 years, so I have some hope for them. But I guarantee that my life would have been much better if I’d simply gone to God, and skipped out on the first 50 years of my life.

I simply can’t not be angry about all the children who will grow up unwanted as I was. And many of them will also go to bed hungry, bruised, and unloved as I was. Am I glad I was born? In the long run am I happy I am alive? The honest answer is ‘No’.

Posted by: Linda H. at January 7, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #110835

I’m not so convinced that the cons want to overturn Roe v. Wade outright. I think if that occurred, they would feel the political sting (blame) of that for years, perhaps decades.

What could happen is a slow burn. Each case that infringes on a womens right to privacy will be given a wink, and found not to be in contrast with Roe v. Wade. After enough cases, Roe v. Wade will have been rendered meaningless.

Posted by: Patrick Howse at January 7, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #110838

I am all for private business but let’s have some common sense. There has to be laws that protect people and that obviously will include some part of private lives. If it didn’t incest wouldn’t be a crime would it? I am amazed at the posts I have read because they seem to be without common sense. I have known many women that have had abortions. They were all 19- mid 20’s, white, middle class or wealthy, no health problems, and used it as birth control. The ones I still am in contact with all regret it. I think the comparison between abortion and gun control hit it right on the spot! To the person that thinks gun control takes away lives:COME ON! Taking away a person’s right to own a gun that uses it for protection is asking for trouble. The people that use guns to kill will get them somehow, someway, and if there was gun control, the good guy would be left standing there defenseless when it came time to protect himself. But you think it is o.k. to kill a baby? Allowing people to have guns does not initiate killing,it initiates protection. Abortion obviously kills regardless of when you think life begins because there has to be something there to abort. I guess you would consider me to be the “religious right” because I am republican. Guess you haven’t met too many of us because I nor any other republican religious right have ever laid down to let the men control anything much less everything. We don’t sit at home waiting for our husband to do everything. Oh yeah! We think all gays should be in jail. You have got to be kidding me! Just because some people don’t agree with marriage between anything other than one man and one woman does not mean that were going to go out and beat them down unless they live the remainder of their life in prison! I think the fact that all of you democrats keep bringing up “the poor, the poor, the poor” is disgusting and insulting. Guess what, I am white, female, republican and most of you would consider me poor. I kept my baby when I was pregnant as a teen. If you’re going to defend abortion keep me out of it. You are using people like me to back up your whole “killing babies is right” theory.

Posted by: larep. at January 7, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #110844

Feminists are only up in arms when the law oppresses women; gender equality is not their goal. If a woman has the option of terminating a pregnancy, and thus terminate her responsibility, then shouldn’t a man have the same option in regards to his responsibility? I’ve met a few pro-choice women that believe a man should “accept his responsibility” and pay child support. It sounds awfully hypocritical.

Where’s the feminist outrage over the bias towards mothers in child custody cases? It’s often said that a women should have the option of terminating a pregnancy because she must endure physical and emotional hardship. Do you folks believe that a man who rarely has the opportunity to see his children, yet is constantly reminded of by phone calls, pictures, and child support payments, is any less emotionally scarred? I’ll concede the two aren’t the same and that a man needn’t endure physical hardship. But to say that a father’s hardship is any less emotionally scarring than a mother’s is disingenuous.

I would never, ever, abandon a woman if I “got her pregnant.” I put that in quotes because it’s not 100% my fault if she does get pregnant. A woman chooses to have sex, chooses to use birth control, and chooses to have sex with a man regardless if he cares about birth control. It’s 50% her fault and 50% my fault. I try not to put myself in this situation. I buy and use condoms everytime and I ask her if she’s on birth control. A condom is not enough, nor is a birth control pill or patch.

Wouldn’t it be great if the pharmaceutical industry would come out with a birth control pill for men?

Posted by: Joseph at January 7, 2006 12:56 AM
Comment #110846
Taking away a person’s right to own a gun that uses it for protection is asking for trouble. The people that use guns to kill will get them somehow, someway, and if there was gun control, the good guy would be left standing there defenseless when it came time to protect himself.
Apples and Oranges. Nobody is trying to keep you from owning a gun (except perhaps a small fringe element). Reasonable gun restrictions are another matter entirely (reasonable, you know, sort of like prohibiting abortions in the last trimester as long as there’s no risk to the mother’s health).

You don’t need a hand gun to protect yourself. Or a machine gun. Or a bazooka in your closet. A hunting rifle or a shotgun should do the job nicely, in terms of fighting off someone breaking in your house.

Remember (as so many have insisted upon drilling into our heads) this is a post 9/11 world we’re living in. I don’t care how many guns you have, they won’t do a damn bit of good against an IED, a biological weapon, or a dirty bomb. You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, as long as you don’t go around thinking you have some sort of constitutionally protected right to own any weapon you want, no matter how potentially destructive it is to society.

And if you’re one of those types that are against any kind of gun restriction at all…can I assume you think we should allow guns on planes as well?

Posted by: Leper at January 7, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #110850
Apples and Oranges. Nobody is trying to keep you from owning a gun (except perhaps a small fringe element).
You don’t need a hand gun to protect yourself.

I take it you’re apart of the “small fringe element.”

A hand gun is a fine tool to protect yourself. If you don’t agree, tell that to the person that trys to hijack your car (with you in it). Tell that to the person that attacks you at the ATM. Tell that to the person that attacks you when you’re walking to your home alone at night.

I agree with you that a hand gun is a poor choice to protect your home. A shot gun is the best choice for that purpose.

Posted by: Joseph at January 7, 2006 1:19 AM
Comment #110856

Jospeph,

I take it you’re apart of the “small fringe element.
You would be wrong then. I don’t think all guns should be banned. I don’t even think hand guns should be banned (except perhaps in large metropolitan areas), just regulated.
A hand gun is a fine tool to protect yourself.
9 out of 10 Latin Kings agree. The one that disagrees would not leave home without the small automatic. When two or more of them come to hijack your car or rob you at the ATM (per the norm), your handgun will be more of a liability than an asset.

Posted by: Leper at January 7, 2006 1:42 AM
Comment #110860
I think the fact that all of you democrats keep bringing up “the poor, the poor, the poor” is disgusting and insulting. Guess what, I am white, female, republican and most of you would consider me poor. I kept my baby when I was pregnant as a teen. If you’re going to defend abortion keep me out of it. You are using people like me to back up your whole “killing babies is right” theory.

First of all, you don’t know any more about the economic status of the other posters here than they know about yours.

Secondly, believing that the government should not interfere with a woman’s decision about a new pregnancy does not equate to “killing babies is right.” I personally think abortion is generally a poor choice, and I have never advised a friend to make use of the procedure, no matter how “poor” or young they were.

I simply do not trust the government to dictate such things.

Such invective does nothing for the discussion.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 7, 2006 1:59 AM
Comment #110865

To make this slightly more on topic, you can add to my list a woman that uses a hand gun to protect herself from a would-be rapist.

If it’s known that citizens in a certian area are armed, would-be carjackers would hunt elsewhere. Furthermore, it’s just as likely that the two or three persons that attack you at the ATM would run away if you pulled out of gun and shot one of them. Hell man, what would you do? Stick your hands in the air and hope those good god-fearing men don’t shoot you because you don’t have enough loot or you don’t get out of your car fast enough?

We have to stand up to criminals. Or else, they’ll get more powerful and more violent (after all if it works against one good person, it should work against another good person).

Posted by: Joseph at January 7, 2006 2:19 AM
Comment #110867

Joseph,
Based on this:

“Do you folks believe that a man who rarely has the opportunity to see his children, yet is constantly reminded of by phone calls, pictures, and child support payments, is any less emotionally scarred? I’ll concede the two aren’t the same and that a man needn’t endure physical hardship. But to say that a father’s hardship is any less emotionally scarring than a mother’s is disingenuous.”

You needed a better lawyer.

I’ve been married three times, endured one anullment, and two divorces. I have three children, two by one of my ex-wives, one by another. If you play you must pay.

Look, getting divorced saves on remodeling and you don’t have to mess around with garage sales. Everything goes away but the bills. You suddenly find that you have very little to worry about. No more need for storage to store the crap you didn’t need anyway.

My kids are all grown now, but before then I always had joint custody. Being the primary breadwinner I had to pay whether they were with me or not. That’s the law in most venues.

You almost make it sound like it should be the mans decision whether or not a woman has an abortion. Or if she decides to have the child it should be all her responsibility unless you consented to the birth.

To my knowledge there is no absolute method of prevention other than steralization either by tubal ligation or vasectomy. No thanks I’ll pass. There is also personal discretion.

But, a guy should have in mind that he is just as responsible as is the woman if an unwanted pregnancy occurs. But, only the woman can decide how to handle that pregnancy. After all I’ve never heard of a dad dieing in child birth.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at January 7, 2006 2:20 AM
Comment #110874

Leper,

Would you clarify just to satisfy my curiosity if the “Latin Kings” (from your post below) are an actual gang or if that is derogatory “slang”.

Thanks in advance, KansasDem

“9 out of 10 Latin Kings agree. The one that disagrees would not leave home without the small automatic. When two or more of them come to hijack your car or rob you at the ATM (per the norm), your handgun will be more of a liability than an asset.

Posted by: Leper at January 7, 2006 01:42 AM “

Posted by: KansasDem at January 7, 2006 2:38 AM
Comment #110898

KansasDem,

The Latin Kings are a Chicago gang. They have been responsible for a number of fatal shootings in my neighborhood in the last three years. The only way I intended to be derogatory was to gangs themselves.

Joseph,

One of the shootings that took place here was totally unprovoked. Two friends were walking home, and passed two (apparent) gang members on the sidewalk, who smiled at them as they passed. Immediately after they had passed each other, one of the gang members turned and shot one of the friends point blank in the head, killing him instantly. They let the other one live. The gang member was not provoked; nothing was stolen, and there was no warning.

Let’s see you defend yourself against an attack such as that.

Likewise, very few of the robberies that take place here are by gun point. They usually involve someone getting a surprise hit in the back of the head by a heavy object.

There is no way guns can reduce crime—only increase it or at best change its nature. Communication, awareness, and community involvement (such as the Chicago CAPS program) are the answers, not arming everyone to the teeth.

Posted by: Leper at January 7, 2006 4:51 AM
Comment #110936

I’m not sure how a blog on Roe v. Wade ended up discussing birth control but to get it back close to topic, here’s my 2cents worth.

Personally, I am pro-life. That being said, it doesn’t mean that I have the right to force my beliefs on the rest of society. Abortion is a personal choice, and thats what it should remain.

As for the post earlier who stated if Roe was overturned that perhaps that 15 year old would choose to be more responsible if abortion were not an option? I seriously doubt it. Most teenagers simply lack the maturity to think about the consequences of their actions, and too many parents have shirked their responsibility to teach their children to behave responsibly.

Posted by: adksapphire at January 7, 2006 8:49 AM
Comment #110938

on my prior post, change birth control to gun control. Sorry, worked all night, suffering brain fade.

Posted by: adksapphire at January 7, 2006 8:51 AM
Comment #110941

I see many men and few women weighing in on this. The basic truth is, abortion is a matter for personal religious belief. Therefore, it is not rightly accorded or withheld by government. It is very true that women will continue to obtain abortions, legal or not. Further, since there is now a long history of legalized abortions, if Roe is overturned, you can expect a far higher number of “illegal” abortions. Since illegal abortions do not have any controls, you can expect a far higher maternal morbidity and mortality.

Posted by: Penny Duff at January 7, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #110942

LindaH:
i think your story is not uncommon.

We’ve gone through two generations since Roe. Stories like yours and others are not heard of any longer. The void of first-generation stories like yours has been filled by the noise special interest groups. The result is a lack of understanding for those groups actually affected.

Patrick:
There will be a distinct ‘sting’ felt. We’re already feeling the effects of supposed moral-based legislation where it’s okay to refuse certain birth-control methods. That’s the slow-burn that you’re referring to.


All:
Follow the money; you’ll find out where the actual motives lie.

When doctors discovered, through controlled scientific experiments, what happens when they fertilize an egg. They put to bed the myth at the time that a person wasn’t pregnant until they could feel it move in the stomach. It wasn’t until science exposed what a fertilized egg looked like. Now that fertilized egg experiment has become ‘life begins at conception’.

Ironically, the doctors that helped people attach themselves to ‘life begins at conception’ had to fertilize the egg and then discard that fertilized egg when the experiment is complete.

Posted by: john trevisani at January 7, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #110946

The religious right seems adamant that young women “be responsible” if they get pregnant but hypocritically deny them the ability to be responsible at every turn. Here in Florida the state constitution requires abstinence-only education, so in spite of the fact that 1/3 of Florida high school students are currently involved in a sexual relationship, they are told nothing about prevention of pregnancy, and even worse, in an effort to terrorize them against sex, are filled with horror stories about STD’s and given the message that condoms don’t work. One brochure my teenager brought home said: “STD’s laugh at condoms”. It’s a bizarre world where fetal tissue qualifies for the “culture of life” category but Iraqi civilians do not.

Posted by: LiberalDoc at January 7, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #110974

john trevisani,

i think your story is not uncommon.

We’ve gone through two generations since Roe. Stories like yours and others are not heard of any longer.

I don’t understand what you meant.

As for stories such as my own, there has been a massive increase in child abuse, child deaths at the hands of caretakers, and children born addicted to drugs. I worked with the Youth Servies +Parental Services for my state for over 25 years, am still a Guardian Ad Litem, and volunteer for the Juvenile Justice Department.

I constantly run into children whose lives are worse than mine ever was. Even as they grow into older adults, (we had to keep tracking all the kids that came into to the system, until they hit the age of 25 - more paper work thanks to the government) their lives were at best sad. And so are the lives of their children. Most, but not all, were following in the footsteps of their mothers, 14+ pregnant, and alone.
Would they have had a chance if they could have had an abortion? I have no way of knowing.

Would they have prefered to have been aborted? That’s a question I will never ask them …
but for many I believe I already know the answer.

Posted by: Linda H. at January 7, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #110977

I am pro-choice as pro-choice can be. I advise all the wingers out there to go down to their local orphanage and adopt. Preferably a deformed or mentally ill child.

Women don’t terminate pregnancies to get their jollies - it isn’t fun. No one undergoes an invasive, expensive procedure if birth control was made available and worked, or if they have the means to provide their baby with a good life, or if they believe their baby won’t be lost in the system. Most unwanted children grow up poor, poorly educated, and their families’ chances at better lives are seriously constrained. Many who are offered for adoption live as wards of the state until their majority, whereupon they enter society with few prospects. And let’s not even discuss infant mortality rates among the poor.

I agree that abortion is sometimes used by young women who refused to consider the consequenses of their irresponsible actions. But I would much prefer that one hundred of these undeserving, unfeeling women slip through the system (and I think the number who choose to terminate based on this thinking is fewer than most realize), than one mother be forced to deliver a fatally malformed infant that she knows will be the death of her. I would prefer that a few immature teens dodge the bullet if it means that an abused mother of three isn’t made to bring another child into a hostile environment. I will do anything I can to save a thousand children from poverty, ignorance, death, and violence.

I find that so many who claim to be pro-life are only concerned with the baby in utero. What about what happens afterward? There’s your crime, your corruption, your homelessness, your skyrocketing poverty. Where do you think it comes from?

Posted by: Ava at January 7, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #110983


Kansas:
You are so correct on many points
“I personally think that Justice Blackmun was wrong with the whole tri-mester thing. If left to me personally I would cut off abortion at about 5 months other than to protect the mother. But that’s my personal belief based on science and silly stuff like that.”
This is my biggest complaint. I don’t think it the role of the court to Write Law, and first, second, and third trimester stipulation in the Roe Decision is blantly doing that. I would rather have lawmakers feet be held to the fire (the electorate).

“I just find it sad that the Democratic Party has become synonymous with pro-abortion. That’s simply not true. The “pro-choice” scenario has been bastardized by the right to the point that all Democrats are pro-abortion. Just not true.”
Again, exactly right. The Republican party has Pro-choice and Pro-life members. Every Republican administration has had Pro-choice and Pro-life. I think the democrats would benefit from being more inclusive.

“To my knowledge blocking third trimester abortions has only met opposition because the lawmakers have failed to provide protection for the mother if her life is in danger.”
Well that is not quite true. The opposition comes from the tired and sad slippery slope argument. Same logic used by NRA and such—that any restriction is abolition. In the case of Third trimester and “Partial Birth”, life of the mother was not in the original, but was added. The partial Birth ban still failed because it did not include “heath of the mother” which includes mental health. Meaning the abortion at 8 months is legal if the mother feels bad and wants to get rid of the fetus (baby!). Sad but true. This was the loophole that kept abortion legal in many, many states pre Roe. I agree with the 4 to 5 months based on silly things like facts, science and not construed rights.
The castration stuff at the end is not a good idea
Kansas:
You are so correct on many points
“I personally think that Justice Blackmun was wrong with the whole tri-mester thing. If left to me personally I would cut off abortion at about 5 months other than to protect the mother. But that’s my personal belief based on science and silly stuff like that.”
This is my biggest complaint. I don’t think it the role of the court to Write Law, and first, second, and third trimester stipulation in the Roe Decision is blantly doing that. I would rather have lawmakers feet be held to the fire (the electorate).

“I just find it sad that the Democratic Party has become synonymous with pro-abortion. That’s simply not true. The “pro-choice” scenario has been bastardized by the right to the point that all Democrats are pro-abortion. Just not true.”
Again, exactly right. The Republican party has Pro-choice and Pro-life members. Every Republican administration has had Pro-choice and Pro-life. I think the democrats would benefit from being more inclusive.

“To my knowledge blocking third trimester abortions has only met opposition because the lawmakers have failed to provide protection for the mother if her life is in danger.”
Well that is not quite true. The opposition comes from the tired and sad slippery slope argument. Same logic used by NRA and such—that any restriction is abolition. In the case of Third trimester and “Partial Birth”, life of the mother was not in the original, but was added. The partial Birth ban still failed because it did not include “heath of the mother” which includes mental health. Meaning the abortion at 8 months is legal if the mother feels bad and wants to get rid of the fetus (baby!). Sad but true. This was the loophole that kept abortion legal in many, many states pre Roe. I agree with the 4 to 5 months based on silly things like facts, science and not construed rights.

The castration stuff at the end of your post is not a good idea


Posted by: have_a_beer at January 7, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #110990

Overturning RvW will finally send the issue on abortions back where it belong, to the states. The Constitution outlines very clearly that the states get to decide any issue not reserved for Congress. If your pro-life or pro-choice, the fight doesn’t stop, it is just divided into 50 smaller fights. As for illegal abortions,they are going to happen. If the doctor is caught he will lose his license, but there will always be doctors willing to do so. There are illegal abortions occurring right now in some states, so that isn’t affected. The Supreme Court should overturn RvW and send the issue to the states, where it belongs.

Posted by: Joeseph at January 7, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #110991

have_a_beer:

In the case of Third trimester and “Partial Birth”, life of the mother was not in the original, but was added. The partial Birth ban still failed because it did not include “heath of the mother” which includes mental health.

My recollection of the bill is that it was worded around the proposal that a D&X abortion is NEVER necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother (or that the wording of the bill would place a doctor in legal danger unless it could be proven that the mother would have DIED had the procedure not been performed).

Posted by: mattLaw at January 7, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #110994

have_a_beer

If I had a baby, in my parents house as a teenager, they would kick me out why… because it would be my responsiblity to take care of the baby. Thus I would have to drop out.

-einghf

Posted by: einghf at January 7, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #110995

Tony:

I’m always interested in how others perceive things. Your are correct I should have wrote “many of today’s liberals”… or better “many loud….”. Sometimes we forget that the loudest do speak for all. I do not like the liberal/conservative label for any and all issues.

At no point did I write the Supreme Court wrote an amendment. I think my point with Roe is that those 5 Justices had decided to make a law regulating abortion (the trimester language) and then went looking for reasons. This could become discussion about the 14th amendment basis (very tortured) for Roe or the implied privacy right in the constitution. (I don’t like the first and like the second).

The linking of abortion and gun rights is good because I find that both side use the slippery slope argument and will make no attempt to agree that the other side has good points. However unlike abortion, the gun-rights groups do have an amendment.

Now for terri shavo. That is a sad, sad situation. First and foremost it was family decision. I think the congress should have stayed out and too many republicans were trying to suck up to leaders in the religious right. I would have liked another PET scan to see what was going on her brain. Of course, that would have led to more arguments because we just don’t know enough about the brain. The situation is a little torrid and I think her husband was a jerk and should have allowed her parents to take care of her. But he wanted the money. The worst is that she dies of dehydration. If she could feel pain, she did—horrible way to die. Some should have given her a cocktail. Of course it all my thoughts. Last thought: Many of the people were sincere in there right to life, not all were jesse Jackson like media hounds. They had deep, religious beliefs that no one should ever take a life. But, those people don’t make good interviews so they rarely get heard. Well those are my thoughts. Not really related to Roe, but you asked. Thanks.

Oh last thought: After this everyone in my family got a living will and sent copies to each other so that our desired would be clearly known. I hope everyone does the same.

So what does a liberal think?

Posted by: have_a_beer at January 7, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #111000

The uninterested doctors involved determined that she would never recover, and that prognosis played out in the results of her autopsy.

Such decisions should lie in the hands of the spouse. She married the man, he felt that he was making a decision in her best interest (and one he claimed she wanted).

Do I think parents should have the legal ability to overrule a health decision made by the spouse? No.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 7, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #111011

Pro life. Pro Choice. Pro keep your nose out
of my female parts. Maybe I am going on a bit
of a tangent here. But many females feel
as I do. Sure we would never choose this
option LIFE IS PERCIOUS but that does not
mean the option should not be there.
Until a man carries,gives birth and
becomes the sole caregiver and provider.
They need to understand the option must
be there as a safety net. No one has a
right to judge but god himself.
Leave it to the individule and there
belief system.

Posted by: Honey P at January 7, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #111040
The situation is a little torrid and I think her husband was a jerk and should have allowed her parents to take care of her. But he wanted the money.
This is also incorrect, and is simply a lie that her parents used to demonize Terri’s husband. All the money went to caring for Terri and legal bills. By the time the rest of the nation became aware of Terri’s existence, the money was already gone. Posted by: Leper at January 7, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #111041

Honey -

I agree 100%… I don’t have any female parts, so my part of the decision is with ‘the woman.’ Actually - my wife and I had a second child as a surprise 10th anniversary present (whooop. Oh well.. it’s all cool.) We had the means to raise the child, and I really wanted a second child, but after seeing what my wife went through with our first child, I knew that I’m there for support - but it’s her decision.

I see many men who feel that they should have equal rights to deciding the outcome of the pregnancy… well, that’s more of a factor of the woman you choose to sleep with. If there’s a good relationship there, then you will have that choice. If not, then you should avoid the sex… that’s the best place to make a choice. God did not give the ability to carry the child, so that’s pretty much ends the discussion.

Posted by: tony at January 7, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #111052

Is anyone suggesting that the child inside the mother’s womb isn’t as much his as it is hers?

That’s my problem with the law. I could have a child and have no say on wether or not it should die or let live. On top of that, if I decided I didn’t want this child, the law forces me to pay child support. I have responsibilities and women have options.

This subject is one example of where feminists contradict themselves. They want men to accept their responsibility, but want the option for themselves.

If this is the way it’s got to be, then the law needs to be changed. A man should not be required to accept any responsibility unless he chooses to be a father. Obviously, what the law is and what people do contradict. Banning abortion will not stop abortions, nor will forcing men to accept their responsibility.

Posted by: Joseph at January 7, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #111059

There is a difference, though.

Women must carry the child for nine months and give birth to it. With pregnancy and child birth comes the risk of complication or death.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 7, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #111092

—-
That’s my problem with the law. I could have a child and have no say on wether or not it should die or let live. On top of that, if I decided I didn’t want this child, the law forces me to pay child support. I have responsibilities and women have options.
—-

The issue is only relevant with bad relationships. If you have a good relationship/marriage, then both will always be involved with decisions about having children.

If you choose to have sex/potentially have a child with a woman while in a bad/no relationship, then you will need to except what comes your way. (BTW - child support is almost always the result of a divorce, unless you are rich or famous, then you have paternity suits.) You have a choice and all the control in the world to avoid having or not having children - before it happens. If you make a bad choice… you can’t expect the world to act ‘fair’ when you’re the one making bad decisions.

Posted by: tony at January 7, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #111094

have-a-beer-

You asked what I think. I think that pretty much every written text we use to guide our lives are open for discussion and interpretation (the Constitution, the Bible, the Sunday Cartoons…) If we choose to interpret them in a long term view, then things generally go well. I think the Supreme Court is usually very wise in it’s decision, because they know that each decision they make will be used in hundreds of other similar cases. I am not aware of a single case they have decided that could be called ‘making laws’ or ‘legislating from the bench.’ They interpret the laws, as they are suppose to. The whole urban myth of legislating from the bench is a simple misdirection to make people fear the courts.. and it’s easy to do because very few people actually understand the way the courts work or the decisions they make.

The people in power now have two of the braches of government, they want the third. It’s a power play. Calling people activist judges is just a old fashion which hunt…

As far as abortion rights and gun control: I think the Constitution as it is now interpreted is the way it was meant to be. Both decisions can be shown unwise by an extreme case on either side - but those rarely apply in normal day-to-day situations. What most people need is not the courts or the Constitution, they just need a level head and some common sense.

Posted by: tony at January 7, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #111101

Another likely occurance if RvW is overturned is that the many people who believe in a womans right to choose but still vote Republican,thinking that right is secure, will change how they vote. That and the galvanization that will ensue on the left must be giving Rove et al nightmares.
PS. If you think abortion should be illegal and you have not adopted an unwanted child you have no moral standing in the conversation so please do not waste our time. If you have God bless you.

Posted by: Bill at January 7, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #111122

Tony:

“I think. I think that pretty much every written text we use to guide our lives are open for discussion and interpretation (the Constitution, the Bible, the Sunday Cartoons…) If we choose to interpret them in a long term view, then things generally go well.”

Yup..

“I am not aware of a single case they have decided that could be called ‘making laws’ or ‘legislating from the bench.’

Roe V wade.. is the best example. There really is not any real legal foudation under Roe. The Roe case symbol, or more acurately a banner. Just know what what you are fighting for. I hope for better or worse a court that signals lawmakers and does not try and take it all on themselves. They need to be humble.

“….it’s easy to do because very few people actually understand the way the courts work or the decisions they make.”

Don’t insult. I think to much power has been given to the court by the community. Be it simple land use or how to be a family. Those of us who are for now called conservatives, see this new “clergy” court divining “right” as a danger. Those who praise the results, without regard to reason are setting the stage for a very, very narrow future.

So is roe v wade really about abortion anymore?

Posted by: have_a_beer at January 8, 2006 1:09 AM
Comment #111135

wow!!! if it should be legal or not is not the fight we should be making…the more appropriate stance should be are we going to let the judicail branch do the job of elected officials. judges should not be the ones setting public policies. i believe this should be left in the hands of the people through elected officials. the abortion arguement will go on for days to come. we need to ask ourselves do we want the courts involved in making public policies or do we “the people” want to control public policy through elected officials? the courts need to interpret law to be constitutional or not constitutional based solely on that which is written in the constitution. we do not need another dread scott case or roe v wade case where judicial opinion becomes the law of the land. thus, judicial or elected officials. what are we the people going to allow?

Posted by: ADS at January 8, 2006 3:49 AM
Comment #111146

Judges DO NOT make laws (as many here as calling public policy.) They interpret laws that are made by Congress. Congress has not made a law specific to Abortion yet that does not interfere with the Constitution. The courts are not saying that they believe abortion should be legal or illegal, they are saying that the laws people have used to restrict abortion are unconstitutional.

How are ‘we the people’ not being represented? What laws exist now that we written by the Supreme Court? What job is the Supreme Court doing that the elected officials are not doing? If you remember - several of the recent laws attempted by Congress (Federal or State) were known to be Unconstitutional when written…

Also - the majority of people in the US support a woman’s right to choose… So, it seems that ‘we the people’ are being represented after all.

Posted by: tony at January 8, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #111179

I agree with mattLaw if I am reading him right.

Face it folks, there really is not an upside for the Republican party to outlaw abortion, whether through overturning Row v. Wade or by legislation.

While the majority of the people believe in a woman’s right to choose, the Republican Party can take the “Pro-Life” position at no real political cost to them.

THE BOTTOM LINE
IF, the Republican party really wanted to do something about the number of abortions, then after 5 years in power they would have done something!
1) Understand that life goes beyond the conception and birth stages. You don’t get to force all women to have a birth against their will and then dump them and the baby on the front steps.
2) If, as a society, we demand that a child be born, then we now are responsible for the welfare of that child.
3) This might include the very programs the Republican party wishes to reduce/eliminate. Such as AFDC, welfare or EIC.
4) Simplified adoption laws.
5) Medical coverage for adopted children to assist couples adopting who don’t have insurance.
6) State or federal assistance to adoptive parents who cannot afford the adoption process.
7) Tax incentives to adopt.
8) SOMETHING!!!

Instead… they have done NOTHING!

Why is that do you suppose?

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 8, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #111201

Here here! They would stop more abortions by raiseing the minimum wage above poverty level than all the laws in the world.

Posted by: Bill at January 8, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #111215

Courts DO MAKE LAWS. They have since before the creation of this country.

This “legislating from the bench” business is a fallacy, though obviously quite a successful one.

There are different methods by which one might interpret the Constitution. Not a single Justice on the bench has adhered to one method throughout all of their decisions. Think you’re opposed to the decision-making of one Justice? I could probably find several opinions in which you actually agree with them. Think you’d always agree with the constitutional interpretation of a Justice. Probably not, if you looked hard enough.

Before much of the law was laid out in statute, the Courts created most of ‘the law.’ This is called the common law, and it exists to this day. Courts do not write statutes. They do, however, “make law.”

Posted by: mattLaw at January 8, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #111220

MattLaw:

I’ve tried to explain the difference between statutory law, constitutional law, administrative law, and common law or case law before on this forum. Good luck getting people to understand it. If I might suggest one good reference: http://www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETInternet/Homepages/AC/Legal%20Assistance%20Home%20Page.nsf/0/f5e85b7d74dfabf0852568bc005b5e74?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=1%2C2

Posted by: Jarandhel at January 8, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #111231

have a beer
can you explain to me how, in specifics, you arrived at the conclusion that roe vs. wade was legislating from the bench. i’d like to see the tact of logic.

Posted by: ec at January 8, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #111288

to darren first, I have adopted four boys and the goverment does provide them with medicad, and we also get help given to us to raise them, I think is divided up between the local, state, and federal goverment, but am not sure about this. I have a feel if the repub’s could stop t his somehow they would.

second I am a liberal who doesn’t believe in abortions, but I would never try to tell a woman what to do either way. And it is kinda funny (not really) that the repubs that want to outlaw abortions, wants to cut the aid to these women who want to do the right thing, and how can you say its not alright to have an abortion, but its alright to put a man to death. The ten comandments say though shall not kill period. it doesnt say unless your george bush or some other governor. THOUGH SHALL NOT KILL means just what it says. If you don’t want to help, quit trying to tell a woman what to do with her body.

as far as the courts and state’s rights, what do you think the supreme court did in the 2000 elections, they had no right gettin involved in wheter florida could recount there votes or not. which also meant that all the votes our solders did not count either.

Thank You for giving me this chance to talk

Posted by: Zuk at January 9, 2006 1:34 AM
Comment #111295

To make a note on what others have said about pro-abortion being linked to democrats…Pro choice does not equal pro-abortion!!! pro choice is exactly what it says…the woman is given options or “choices”…the choice of keeping the baby, adoption or abortion. clinics educate women on all the pros and cons of each “choice”…do you really think any woman WANTS to go through the abortion process???? of course not!
how can i speak of this?? 4 years ago an ex girlfriend of mine got pregnant. we were 20 years old and in college. we felt the immediate shock of having to choose. In the end she made the choice of not having it. we went to clinics where we were educated about ALL the options.
after realizing what pro choice really was…i became a supporter of options for any woman

Posted by: jvl at January 9, 2006 4:41 AM
Comment #111318

The battle of unwed mothers and abortions, should not be held in the picketing lines of abortion clinics. By the time we get there it is to late. Proper sex education should begin a long time before this choice is ever needed. In our schools we teach abstinace till marriage. Our children are encouraged to take virgintiy pledges. This is a wonderfull concept, but in reality, sex is happening. Our children are having sex, and we condone it by pretending its not our kids, by making it taboo, and ignoring the problem. When our children walk in the front door to tell us they are pregnant, and abortion becomes part of a decision to make. It’s way to late, start sex education before abortion becomes part of the equation. Encourage the use of birth control and condoms. No they may not be 100%, but some percentage of protection is better than none at all. Our children are being taught that birth control and condoms do not reduce the risk of pregnancy and STD’s. So, what this means, is when the occasion arises, and no protection in sight, the thought that runs through our children’s mind is. Well condoms don’t work any way, so why bother. It only takes this one time. Let our children learn from our mistakes, teach them sex education, the responsiblitlies and consequences of sex. Reduce the need for abortion through education, knowledge, and support. And in God’s eyes abortion may be wrong, but so is standing in the picket line judging these women,and condeming them to hell.

Posted by: toni at January 9, 2006 8:33 AM
Comment #111330

Zuk,
Congratulations on the adoptions! The sister I lost last year was adopted and I thank God each day that I had those years to know such a wonderful woman.

I wasn’t aware of the support available to people who adopt or are foster parents. A lot of it propbably depends on the state.

I think that you were right and support my belief that when it comes to the support of the child after birth then it is no longer such a “precious life” but a “tax burden” on society.

People try to make it sound as if Liberals don’t love children. We do! We believe that a child should have the best that a family and society can provide.

I too would never tell a woman the choice she has to make, but I want there to be as many choices as we can possibly provide. We are a great nation with resources that are unimagined!

The Republicans have had 5 years to create a national system tailored to giving these choices… Instead, their priorities have been elsewhere.

When it comes to true committment, don’t listen to the words… watch the action. The words the Republican party has used to define themselves as “Pro-Life” are cheap. To actually do something about it requires action… and they have not done anything.

Wanna see the truth about the Republican Party and their “solidatiry” around “LIfe”?

Let the Pro-Life faction start driving towards programs that will provide meaningful alternatives to abortion and watch the fun start.

The truth will come out. The COST!!! Now you will have the Republican Party face the free ride they have enjoyed all these years.

‘Casuse, when it comes time to pay for alternatives they are going to scream bloody murder.

Which only will prove:
Republicans only used Pro-Life to gain votes.
Money is more important that life.
(they will try to shroud their motives in words such as “Welfare-state”, as if purity to a doctrine is more important that a child’s life)

To everyone,
Why, after 5 years in power, hasn’t the Republican administration developed REAL alternatives to abortion?

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 9, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #112542

JohnT. well, who really wins? Consider this. If overturned, the states pass laws allowing or criminalizing abortion. My guess is about 10 states will allow, and 40 will criminalize.

Now, if the states that allow, are smart, they will make it illegal for residents of other states to come to their state to have an abortion. In ten years the stats on botched illegal abortions in the criminalized states will fill headlines on a regular basis, and jails will be overflowing, and courts clogged. Voila! In 10 years, 40 states will allow, an 10 will criminalize.

Me thinks the right doth protest too much for their eventual long term good!

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 12, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #197635

I believe that every state should be able to make there own desicions about whether to allow abortion or to let it be controlled by the government. They already rule most of our lives why not give then eveything else. by the way im only 16

Posted by: lauren at December 4, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #267169

WHO benefits from making abortion illegal or strickter? Ignorant church dominant people. The child will NOT benefit from making women stay pregnant-because it ONLY PUNISHES THE CHILD IN THE END. The quality of life is MORE IMPORTANT THEN QUANITY. Forcing a women to give birth doesn’t do ANY GOOD FOR HER SANITY. Women will not only seek illegal dangerous abortions-but will abuse their bodies to the extreme to cause a misscarriage or worse-fetal deformity. Yet pro-life people have NO understanding what it is like to struggle with the children women ALREADY have.

People need to focus on NOT HOW MANY FETUS’S ARE ABORTED-but rather how many babies are loved-WHEN BORN. If such a rediculous ban of abortion happens-then ALL birth control better be FREE-including a women getting her tubes tide-at ANY AGE.

Ban abortions-and more unwanted children will be born, abused, neglected, or living in orphans their whole life.

Posted by: Rayleen at October 17, 2008 10:07 AM
Comment #399723


The spell cast by greatzula@yahoo.com made wonders! all of a sudden my husband who departed from me 3 years ago started calling me and wanted us to get back and I knew it was because of the love spells from Great zula that made my husband to reconcile with me. When he came back he was all on me kissing and rubbing on me telling me how much he missed me and loves me, ZULU is spectacular in love spell! his love spell came out tremendously, I highly recommending this spell caster for whatever problems you are experiencing in your relationship. he is the real deal. his love spell is absolutely wonderful!

Sydney BRETT.

Posted by: Brett at October 18, 2015 2:56 AM
Post a comment