Do you support Roe Vs. Wade?

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Can we get a poll?

It would appear that Roe v Wade could be reviewed again.

I support Roe v Wade.
The idea of States being able to allow or not allow abortions, in my opinion, will be a disaster.


Would you like to see it overturned and given back to the states?

http://theweek.com/articles/781891/what-does-anthony-kennedys-retirement-mean-roe-v-wade

 

[andnowweknow]

Oh god.

The biggest functional problem with this and why Roberts won't let it happen is because it would completely delegitimize the supreme court as apolitical...as if that hasn't occurred already.

 

[Rygu]

Depends on the day.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

I do not want them to overturn Roe versus Wade (go back to state by state) I think that is a horrible horrible idea.

How so?

Financially is my first thought. Very expensive.

Medically (illegal unsafe abortions)

 

[Johnny Mac]

Hopefully Trump's Supreme Court gets rid of abortion and gay marriage too.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Oh god.

The biggest functional problem with this and why Roberts won't let it happen is because it would completely delegitimize the supreme court as apolitical...as if that hasn't occurred already.

But 4-3. How would Roberts not let it happen? Pressure on the other judges?

 

[SammyPops]

Not American .... so good luck with that SCOTUS, abortion, and states' rights thing.

 

[sub_thug]

I support the decision of Roe v Wade.

People need to remember that this isn't President Trump's Supreme Court. It's the Supreme Court of the United States. This Court shouldn't be a political animal. It's supposed to be an impartial interpretation of the law. SCOTUS is bigger than any Presidential Administration, and FDR kind of had to learn that one the hard way.

 

[waiguoren]

Can we get a poll?

It would appear that Roe v Wade could be reviewed again.

I support Roe v Wade.
The idea of States being able to allow or not allow abortions, in my opinion, will be a disaster.


Would you like to see it overturned and given back to the states?

http://theweek.com/articles/781891/what-does-anthony-kennedys-retirement-mean-roe-v-wade

I suppose you don't think Roe violated the 10th Amendment. Why not?

Regulation of abortion is not enumerated in Article I, Section 8. Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, the power to regulate abortion is reserved to the states.

 

[oldshadow]

I support abortion in cases of rape of any kind. Or the health of the mother. With limits on when, before 21 weeks.

I don't like it but support it. Now days with plan B that would make abortions less likely.

I support plan B to be inexpensive for any one at the age of consent. And free to any rape victim at the hospital.

I support birth control for anyone at the age of consent at a very low price to free depending on the income.

 

[ImCertainOfCirkunov]

But 4-3. How would Roberts not let it happen? Pressure on the other judges?

What?

Not sure what you're talking about. There are 9 justices on the court. Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan on one side, with Roberts likely joining them. That's 5-4, assuming Trumps appointee votes against.

What am I missing?

 

[nostradumbass]

That case was fuzzy as shit, if your shit was fuzzy for some reason. I think the SC justices based it on privacy. It has nothing to do with privacy.

 

[waiguoren]

I support abortion in cases of rape of any kind. Or the health of the mother. With limits on when, before 21 weeks.

I don't like it but support it. Now days with plan B that would make abortions less likely.

I support plan B to be inexpensive for any one at the age of consent. And free to any rape victim at the hospital.

I support birth control for anyone at the age of consent at a very low price to free depending on the income.

That wasn't the question. The question was: do you support the ruling/jurisprudence in Roe v. Wade?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Can we get a poll?

It would appear that Roe v Wade could be reviewed again.

I support Roe v Wade.
The idea of States being able to allow or not allow abortions, in my opinion, will be a disaster.


Would you like to see it overturned and given back to the states?

http://theweek.com/articles/781891/what-does-anthony-kennedys-retirement-mean-roe-v-wade

I actually think states being able to allow or disallow abortions won't be a disaster at all. We'd have a brief flare up of tension as all the states rush to implement new laws, but then abortion would largely be laid to rest as a national issue. I think a lot of the issues that pit people against each other in this country, health care, abortion, etc could be settled on a state level. If Californians or New Yorkers want single payer, they should pass it this year on a state level and be happy. If Oklahomans don't, they should all just die at thirty or whatever happens when you go without gummint medicine.

From my understanding of Roe vs Wade, it isn't a great interpretation of the Constitution. However, if the federal government really were to treat American citizens as if they had a right to privacy in other areas, like say drug laws, then I'd be willing to support Roe vs Wade all day long. It'd be a decent compromise, a strict limitation on government power for legalized abortion.

 

[waiguoren]

That case was fuzzy as shit, if your shit was fuzzy for some reason. I think the SC justices based it on privacy. It has nothing to do with privacy.

They took this text from the 14th Amendment:

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

And somehow discovered that this protects an individual's "right to privacy" (a phrase which does not exist in the US Constitution). Then they decided that this supposed "right to privacy" contains the "right to abortion" as a subset.

Justice Byron White's dissent was excellent:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

 

[oldshadow]

That wasn't the question. The question was: do you support the ruling/jurisprudence in Roe v. Wade?

I support what I said at a state and federal level.

Roe v Wade is kind of strange because it was based on privacy and left too much open. But that's what you get sometimes.

So I would like to see a case defining Roe v Wade more nd not doing away with it totally.

If you want all or nothing then that's something different.

I really don't mind if they kick it back to the states.

 

[abiG]

 

[SMillard]

I support the decision of Roe v Wade.

People need to remember that this isn't President Trump's Supreme Court. It's the Supreme Court of the United States. This Court shouldn't be a political animal. It's supposed to be an impartial interpretation of the law. SCOTUS is bigger than any Presidential Administration, and FDR kind of had to learn that one the hard way.

I agree, but good luck with that. We've devolved into a fan based mentality society that is more akin to supporting a sports team than actual policy to advance us as a society. We are going down a path that more about supporting "our team" than the actual country, Trump won't be able to do ANYTHING as you mentioned FDR learned the hard way, but in typical Trump fashion he can push for a mile but gain an inch. He won't get all his base wants, but they will push a little closer to their ultimate objective.

 

[sub_thug]

I agree, but good luck with that. We've devolved into a fan based mentality society that is more akin to supporting a sports team than actual policy to advance us as a society. We are going down a path that more about supporting "our team" than the actual country, Trump won't be able to do ANYTHING as you mentioned FDR learned the hard way, but in typical Trump fashion he can push for a mile but gain an inch. He won't get all his base wants, but they will push a little closer to their ultimate objective.

Isn't this the point of periodic elections though?

 

[SMillard]

That argument could work both ways. If you had women getting abortions illegally there would be fewer women getting the abortions due to lack of knowing where to go, higher prices due to black market influences (ie. supply and demand as well as risk), fear of breaking the law and general fears about quality control. Now let's look at that same thing from the gun side; again fewer people would be getting the guns due to availability, knowledge of where to get the guns, fear of breaking the law, fear/apprehension about product quality, add to that if guns were illegal ammunition would also be at a premium.

So despite what you think on either issue, abortions would be down and gun violence would be down.

Personally, I believe in rights. If a woman wants to have an abortion and go buy an assault rifle while smoking a blunt; I don't really care.