How to Overturn Roe V Wade

a reply to: windword

I can't think of any situation that would compel the court to void Roe V Wade, except to put a fetus' life above a woman's life or human right to live physically and mentally healthy...but what was Trump rambling on about feti being ripped out of women's wombs in the ninth month of gestation? Is this a fact?

www.bustle.com...

I think its a good discussion to have about when it goes from life to person. you cant say sanctity of life, else you cant kill a tree. you cant say either sanctity of human life, else no more executions, no more progress towards sensible euthanasia, etc.

It has to be then a discussion on when life becomes a person.

personally, I see this as simply, if the brain is active, then its a person. a person is a thinking being. before and after thinking, its just life that has far less rights..

The brain activates around, absolute earliest, 3 month mark. really it takes the central nervous system a bit longer to form and activate, giving the first sensations.
Once that happens, only in cases of actual physical emergency, or perhaps massive birth defects that is doing a mercy more than anything...otherwise..its pretty much murder.
you've decided at 3 months.

a reply to: InTheLight

but what was Trump rambling on about feti being ripped out of women's wombs in the ninth month of gestation? Is this a fact?

No! Trump is ignorant on this subject.

Roe V Wade gives the state control of the welfare of the unborn from viability forward. No US state allows for "on demand" abortion past the beginning of the 3rd trimester, most halt it during the second, around 22 weeks.

Some states allow for late term abortions upon a dire fetal prognosis. Some states will only allow for late term abortion when the abnormal fetus goes into distress, causing the mother to succumb to sepsis and/or organ shut down, heart failure, etc.

If the mother is in distress, but the fetus is relatively healthy, doctors will do a c-section, not an abortion.

One thing that has always struck me as, ironic. The same people who are screaming about abortion..... are the same ones screaming about welfare and of all the people on assistance and all the costs and all the evils of unwanted pregnancies and being responsable....bla bla bla. Then they call themselves Capitalist.

They call themselves capitalist and preach how the market system works...... and they say almost everyone believes in this system.
So I ask,
"Well if the system works the way you say, wouldn't that mean that the doctor would open up his clinic, but because no one agreed with the service he offered...... he would go out of business?" "Isn't that the way capitalism works?"

"Right now aren't there are 1000s of clinics all over the country and you have to wait in line, better be on time for your appointment or you will need to reschedule."
Isn't that capitalism at work?"
"Shouldn't government get out of the way of business?"

originally posted by: windword
There's been a lot of talk and speculation about overturning the landmark case of Roe V Wade;

Roe v. Wade was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1973. It made abortion legal in many circumstances. The decision said that a woman's right to privacy extended to the unborn child. Roe v. Wade - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President elect Trump has promised to stock the Supreme Court with justices that will remove federal oversight on the abortion issue, giving it back to the states.

My question to you, ATS, is; "What possible legal case/argument will be brought forward that will compel such a ruling?

Will it be in defense of the unborn life, whose right to life "trumps" privacy? Or will it be brought forward by a state claiming their right to interfere on behalf of a nonviable life "trumps" federal oversight?

Conservatives better hope he doesn't...

The wall to wall stories of rapes, incest and any other case that is a pro life worse case scenario will be unending..

The majority of the population doesn't agree with republican policies. So as they get implemented and crash and burn. The blowback will be immediate and overwhelming.

The way I see it, civil rights legislations (specifically) absolutely cannot be on a state-by-state basis if you want to live in a country that operates at any kind coherent level for ALL of its citizens.

Civil rights are of important national interest in every 1st world country on the planet, and are not handled on a municipality-by-municipality (or state-by-state, or town-by-town, or whatever) basis.



Unless, of course, you guys want to live in 50 individual teeny weeny little countries ?!

You can't tell women that "all uteruses are belong to us" in one state, while in the state right next door women are not treated as chattel and have the right to decide their own lives and destinies.

It's ridiculous.

Civil rights are civil rights are civil rights, across the board.

Period.





Now how you guys go about performing abortions (or not), and making it easily available (or not), and setting limits on abortions (or not) on a state-by-state basis is a completely different ball of wax and should be on a state-by-state basis left up to the denizens of those states to decide what works best for them as a demographic.

But the general civil rights issue (Roe vs Wade) that women do and should continue to have the general overall right to decide for themselves their own lives and fates in the USA ?

THAT is not up for debate.





And for some of you who need reminding:

Roe vs Wade is a civil rights issue first, and an abortion issue second.

So Trump attempting to legislate overall civil rights on a state-by-state basis is a laughable fantasy in his and his extremist cronies' brains at best, and a human rights violation at worst. It would push US women back into 18th century.

I don't care how many republican puppets are sitting on the supreme court.

It would not be allowed to happen.




Sure it takes forever to push through civil rights legislations at first, but once they're in... good luck trying to take them back from people.

Pfft.

a reply to: windword

My question to you, ATS, is; "What possible legal case/argument will be brought forward that will compel such a ruling?

I'm no lawyer, but:

Roe v. Wade Section XI,

1(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.
www.sacred-texts.com...

A physician, denied a license by a state due to willingness to perform abortions during the first trimester, may challenge the state. The lower court may rule for the state. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court may choose to take the case.

Here's where politics enter in. The GOP has maintained a stance to "not legislate from the bench". But under the new "reality", who cares any more! If winning is the important thing trumping ideology, why not approve legislating from the bench as long as the "right" judges are sitting on the bench?

ETA

Politics can exert nearly endless reach:
Tax Reform: "Any corporation producing birth control pills or IUDs will pay an increase of 50% taxes."

Trade Agreements: "Any imported birth control pills or IUDs will be tariffed at 1000% of market value."

a reply to: CranialSponge

ya, know, go and do a little research about pregnant women in those countries that have strict abortion laws.
in south american, you have women locked up because the courts chose not to believe that they only had a miscarriage and didn't do something to kill their child, you have kids being force to carry children to term after being molested by the adults that were entrusted to care for them... women dying because of tubal pregnancies that doctors refused to treat.
the developed third world nations that have strict abortion laws are a little better but still, poland- a women is blinded after the court refused the abortion that her doctors said would save her life, in ireland, a women is left to suffer for days because "they are a christian nation" and abortion isn't allowed...

then, look at the kind of care that pregnant women have recieved in the US in catholic hospitals. the doctors say that their patient needs to be sterilized while the c-section is performed because she is a cancer patient and not only would another pregnancy endanger her life but also her health would be endangered because from a second operation. a miscarrying women is sent home multiple times even after developing a high fever, and the last time they try to send her home she collapses on her way out the door and finally they admit her!

take a look at any place that has strict abortion law, and you will find cases where the women suffer needlessly from lack of healthcare, and imprisoned because they miscarried.

1. A critically ill, 27-year-old Washington D.C. woman was 26 weeks pregnant when a judge ordered her to have a Cesarean section. He did so with the understanding that the procedure would very likely kill her. It did. The baby died as well.

2. A pregnant woman in Iowa fell down a flight of stairs and went to the hospital. The hospital reported her to the police who arrested her for “attempted fetal homicide.”

3. A Utah woman gave birth to twins, one of which was stillborn. Her doctors blamed the death on her decision to delay a C-section. She was arrested for fetal homicide.

4. A Louisiana woman checked in to a hospital due to vaginal bleeding. She was locked up for a year on charges of “second-degree murder before medical records revealed she had suffered a miscarriage at 11 to 15 weeks of pregnancy.”

5. A Florida woman “was held prisoner at a hospital to prevent her from going home while she appeared to be experiencing a miscarriage. She was forced to undergo a Cesarean.” She still lost the baby, and her two small children at home were left without her while she was held. A state court ruled that this detention was wrong, although it would have been fine if she was further along in her pregnancy.

6. Another Florida woman who went into labor at home was picked up by a sheriff, driven to the hospital and forced to have a Cesarean against her will. She filed suit, and the court concluded that the woman’s personal constitutional rights “clearly did not outweigh the interests of the State of Florida in preserving the life of the unborn child.”

7. A severely depressed, pregnant 22-year-old woman in South Carolina tried to commit suicide. She was jailed for child abuse.

www.alternet.org...

can you think of any other health condition where you don't have a say as to what your treatment should be or being forced to have a different treatment against your will? imprisoned because the outcome wasn't what was desired?

a reply to: pthena

Yeah, that could work, all those ideas. Yikes! You have a very clever and devious mind. Some think tank would appreciate your input, I'm sure!

a reply to: windword

Some think tank would appreciate your input, I'm sure!

What? I thought ATS was a think tank.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

It has to be then a discussion on when life becomes a person.

*Life* ......and......*viability*


Two separate things, you may detect life but without the nourishment

and protection of the host/mother there is no viability.

personally, I see this as simply, if the brain is active, then its a person. a person is a thinking being. before and after thinking, its just life that has far less rights..
The brain activates around, absolute earliest, 3 month mark. really it takes the central nervous system a bit longer to form and activate, giving the first sensations.

At 3 months it is still unviable to survive outside of the

mothers uterus.

Once that happens, only in cases of actual physical emergency, or perhaps massive birth defects that is doing a mercy more than anything...otherwise..its pretty much murder.
you've decided at 3 months.

Amillia Taylor is the worlds youngest premature baby to survive born

at 21 weeks and 6 days. that is 5 and a half months not 3 months.

a reply to: windword

Personally, I would support some sort of similar amendment that states that all life (even yet-to-be-born) is "sacred," and should be protected. I'm not certain that I would make it as absolute as to what you've quoted is (mother's life and rape victims, for one...although I'm even torn on the rape victims, but I err on the side of mental health of the mother on that one), but something like what I've stated, I would support.

You must remember that it takes a lot to get an amendment even officially proposed, let alone ratified into the constitution--the proposed amendment would have to go to all states, and 38/50 would have to ratify it. There is no circumventing state's rights when it comes to amending the constitution, as every single state has a right to vote yes or no--a 'yes' vote being a relinquishing of said authority over the matter.

a reply to: pthena

LOL Yes it is! But, I meant a professional think tank!

I kinda doubt that professional strategists are trolling ATS for ideas, but maybe!

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You must remember that it takes a lot to get an amendment even officially proposed, let alone ratified into the constitution--the proposed amendment would have to go to all states, and 38/50 would have to ratify it. There is no circumventing state's rights when it comes to amending the constitution, as every single state has a right to vote yes or no--a 'yes' vote being a relinquishing of said authority over the matter.

Yes. I recently, since the election, found out just hard it is to ratify a new amendment. I feel much safer knowing that.

AND, I only just became aware that the Citizen's United decision is being formally appealed, when I saw that there was a measure rescinding it was on our California ballot. It passed.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: windword

First, realize I'm pro choice.

However, an argument could well enough be made that once a heart starts beating - which is very, very early in pregnancy, that it's indicative of a new life, a new individual, and thus fetal rights talk could come into play in which case it'd be a battle between mothers rights and the babies rights, plenty of religious people would fight for the fetus without caring about it after it's born, though.

For you pro life conservatives on this thread, that's a major point in which you'll likely never compromise on. Giving a damn about a person after they are born. "life is sacred" - unless of course they're asking for your tax money to support a baby, in which case you flip out. You're not consistent.

I believe in states rights, but as far as abortion goes... I'd rather just take the responsible steps to minimize them, which includes easy and cheap access to contraceptives and birth control, day after pills, focusing on building families, and things like that.

You are confusing two issues. Right to life is not the same as the right to a hand out. I don't think you can lump the abortion debate and tax debate into the same argument.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You must remember that it takes a lot to get an amendment even officially proposed, let alone ratified into the constitution--the proposed amendment would have to go to all states, and 38/50 would have to ratify it. There is no circumventing state's rights when it comes to amending the constitution, as every single state has a right to vote yes or no--a 'yes' vote being a relinquishing of said authority over the matter.

Yes. I recently, since the election, found out just hard it is to ratify a new amendment. I feel much safer knowing that.

AND, I only just became aware that the Citizen's United decision is being formally appealed, when I saw that there was a measure rescinding it was on our California ballot. It passed.

That is the thing most people seem to be missing when they are hyper ventilating over extreme policies (even though, socially, I don't think Trump even has any extreme policies - thank your lucky stars Ted Cruz is not President elect).

Nothing will get passed if it is vehemently opposed. That is why, for example, Trump is limiting the approach to deportations to criminals that have done much more than just break the law by entering and staying in the country illegally).

I really dont see why abortion is needed or nessary unless health is at risk or it is rape?


USE CONTRACEPTION OR KEEP YOUR #ING LEGS CLOSED!

a reply to: UKTruth

Nothing will get passed if it is vehemently opposed. That is why, for example, Trump is limiting the approach to deportations to criminals that have done much more than just break the law by entering and staying in the country illegally).

Do you remember, or did you see that Trump rally/town hall meeting where he said that he didn't want to deport good working families who were here illegally, and he asked the crowd if they agreed. The booed like hell against that idea, so he said, "Yeah, okay, I'll deport them too, I guess".

But, yeah I agree. Trump won't be able to a lot of things that he's promised, because he won't have the support. Term limits comes to mind. ALTHOUGH, Obama DID succeed in getting his bill banning Congressmen, etc., from benefiting from insider trading. You never know!

a reply to: crazyewok
Because sometimes in our lives..... things happen. It could be a family barely surviving as it is...... or a single mother who just cant not quit work and manage her household. Each has their own reasons and own situations and the decision to do something like this is not ours to make for them..... nor harass them or belittle.
But there is a responsibility to the unborn to let people know that they have X amount of time to make a decision and after that their next option is post birth adoption.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging each sides opinion, admitting that neither is ever going to get things 100% the way they want and finding a solution that neither side may love, but both can live with