It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Courts may be forced to reconsider Roe Vs Wade

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 04:25 PM
For months on Norma Mc Corvey, the Roe in Roe Vs wade, the landmark supreme court case that legalized abortion nation wide, has been seeking to reopen the case.( Now the court may be forced to reopen this issue which has so divided our nation thanks to a bill recently passed in the South Dakota legislature.

Abortion bill passes final legislative hurdle


Associated Press

PIERRE, S.D. - Most abortions would be banned in South Dakota by a bill that received final legislative approval Wednesday, sending the measure to Gov. Mike Rounds.

I am glad that a state has finally had the courage to step up and demand that this issue be revisited on the national judicial level. This is a defining issue of our time. The court case that originally legalized abortion was fraught with misinformation and coerced testimony. No matter how the court decides on the issue this time around I hope they will at least have a fair and open hearing on the matter allowing testimony from medical professionals on both sides of the issue. A great deal has been learned by medical science about the beginnings of life since the time of this court case and this new evidence deserves a hearing. Maybe South Dakota will take the place of ?trend setting state? balancing out California?s ultra liberal influence in initiating new national discussions and policies.

See this site for more information on Norma McCorvey and Roe Vs Wade

[Edited on 29-2-2004 by Kano]

posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 04:28 PM
There is also a court hearing pending on this appeal in March. Here is a link to that story.

posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 04:39 PM
If this a matter of state control then it is a token proposal as women wishing to have an abortion will just get in a state that allows it.

posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 04:43 PM
It is my opinion that individual moralistic decisions like this should be left up to state legislatures. That way the state government can establish morality for its own state according to the will of its people. While this will allow for some states to have legal abortions it will also allow other to ban it thus encouraging the kind of ethical and social diversity that we have all come to so deeply love and appreciate in America.

posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 04:48 PM
I can see it being the moral will of the state, but it cannot enforce it's will on an individual from that state due to state lines. Therefore, what's the point. BTW, I am not for abortion as birth control or conveniences sake.

posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 04:55 PM
Pro-Life "scientist" ~ Your Honor, for the record I'd like to enter the testimony of this fetus. This is an actual recording of a "silent scream."

Recording ~ [silence]

Stenographer ~ Um, how do I spell that?

Sorry but THAT is the kind of so called "prejudicial" psudeo science the court's ignored and I hope they do again.

posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 05:04 PM
The point in creating laws is to outline the boundaries of society. If a state wishes to say that it affords legal protection to the unborn in that state it should have the right to do so within its powers. That establishes the boundaries of that society in a similar, but much more important way than say the drinking age does. IF a person decides they want an abortion they must go out of the state in order to get it and thus technically leave the society in order to do it. The idea of granting the unborn legal rights would not be in vain for the implications for that state would be far reaching and have a moral influence regardless of whether or not individuals chose to leave that state to get an abortion and then come back.

top topics


log in