How to Overturn Roe V Wade

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?

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.

a reply to: windword

I am reading up on how to live in a dictatorship. The anti abortion and republicans have all the say about women and their health.

a reply to: windword

To be perfectly honest windword, I'm not sure why you're so concerned over this Roe vs Wade thing.

Even if R v. W ends up getting turned over (and that's a big "if"), most of us know bloody well that it would end up getting turned right back over again down the road.

This is, afterall, the 21st century. Not too many people want to live in the 18th century... therefore, a ridiculous move like that would cause havoc in the streets in short order.

There are still some countries that live in an 18th century theocratic fascist regime, but the USA is not one of them. Thus any 18th century moves would prove to be futile (and possibly even dangerous) in a 1st world nation.

It just wouldn't hold ground for very long at all.





And besides... if the USA wants to remain competitive in a 21st century world, it's going to have to think like a 21st century country.

Even if some of its citizens are kicking and screaming all the way.

a reply to: deadlyhope

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.

That certainly is a popular argument, but it wouldn't overturn Roe V Wade, it would just change the "WHEN" question of viability. Roe V Wade gives already gives states the right to interfere from the point of viability.

a reply to: MOMof3

What state are you in anyways?

If trump wants to give states their rights, which I'm very very much for actually, I'd look into your state reps and stop creating hyperbole about trump .. If things go correctly and state rights are restored and enhanced, , it'll mostly be Utah that's behind the times while everyone else can enjoy faster progress towards their own ideals.

Stop the fear mongering, it's getting old.

a reply to: CranialSponge

To be perfectly honest windword, I'm not sure why you're so concerned over this Roe vs Wade thing.

I don't know why you're concerned that I'm concerned.

a reply to: windword

Viability could be made to mean 6 weeks along, though, if it's about heartbeat.. And one week along if it's means implantation and development, even sooner by others standards.. . Reinterpret one word, and Roe vs Wade could become to mean pro life.

a reply to: windword

I think that what needs to happen (and the best way to end this argument) would be to legislate or amend DoH policies to specifically state when an individual human being's life begins. At that point--if we had that tangible declaration in our hands--any non-medically-necessary killing of said human being would be murder. Federal and state laws always talk about a "person," but never define when an individual becomes said person for legal reasons. Define that, and the murkiness of this debate will clear up quite a bit.

I know where my opinion lies, but that is irrelevant to this discussion at this point.

Just make it so that newborns have no rights until about 6 months old. That should make all the pro baby killers satisfied.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I live in Idaho. Where because of faith based religious laws, parents can let their children die for curable fevers and diseases and then want to overturn the right to abortion.

No I will not stop.

a reply to: CranialSponge

It seems like our incoming regime wants to be in the 18th century. It took a long time to pass Roe v. Wade. If it is overturned, Supreme Court Justices serve for life.

a reply to: reldra

I honestly don't believe that HRH Trump would have a hope in hell of overturning an important piece of civil rights legislation in the US like Roe vs Wade.

Not a hope in hell.

Extremist right-wing politics have been trying to turn the US into a theocracy for decades.

It's just not going to happen.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The GOP would like to do that and as a part of their Republican National Platform, they've proposed a constitutional amendment:

THE SANCTITY AND DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFE Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
www.lifenews.com...

Of course, if enacted, this would make Roe V Wade irrelevant. It would outlaw abortion and most hormonal birth control on a federal level. It would deny "State's Rights". Do you support such an amendment?

The saddest thing of all, is that those who want to overturn Roe V. Wade fail to see that such provides them protection, far more than they know it.
The argument that is done in favor of abandoning abortion has always been about control over the woman, never about what happens after. And the ideas that they use to justify their argument and point is always based on a religious ground and not one of legal standing. If they were serious about stopping abortion, there should be also discussion and consideration about expanding social programs, making it easier to raise a child, rather than hamper families or those who are in need. They would not be cutting food stamps or limiting them, there would be no discussion on welfare to assist families struggling, rather the process would be easier, and even the education system would be getting a boost and much better, rather than in some cases, falling apart, failing both the children and the local communities.

The Roe V. Wade case also settled something else, that no one is wanting to talk about or willing to, and that is a person’s right of Privacy, the privacy between a doctor and a patient and medical privacy. Don’t you think it is kind of funny, that the very people who are advocating on banning abortion are the very same ones who want limited government, yet fail to see that by over turning Roe V. Wade, that it would do the exact opposite? Now there would have to be government oversite into what goes on in the hospitals and clinics, far more than what is now, affecting each and every person. These same people also back and support the cutting of social net programs, like food stamps, and welfare.

The other aspect of this debate that is never discussed, is what do you do when a woman goes and has an abortion? Lets say for example Jane Doe. She is single and pregnant, and lives in Texas, but wants to have an abortion. Texas has made it illegal, and so she travels to New Mexico, where it is legal, and has the procedure, and then returns home, is she going to be punished or will it be a loop hole that is allowable?

How far are they willing to go and to what extent will it harm the very population if the conservatives get their way?

Why do we need to over turn anything? We are supposed to be Americans and not force our views on anyone when it comes to personal choices.
The only thing we need to be discussing is the cut off point, Rowe vs Wade is already law.
A womans right to decide is between her and her conscience.
We have to find a middle ground on when it is too late...... not if someone is allowed to.
Anyone with the slightest amount of intelligence would surely know they were pregnant at 3 months.... couldnt we just agree that if you havent figured out if your pregnant or not by the time 4 months comes rolling along...... its your own fault. ...... and start putting that energy and resources to a more productive use?
Standing in front of a clinic calling good people bad names...... and telling each other how much you love children is a joke.... How many needy children did you have to ignore as you drove to the clinic? You couldnt find even one child who is alive RIGHT NOW..... whose life you could make a real difference in?? Heavens no, that would actually involve interacting with them .
I dont like these anti-Trump protesters and I dont like these anti-abortion protesters either. Both want to take away the countries right to choose for themselves.
Both sides will use the old "my sheet is stuff, and your stuff is sheet".... to claim their opinion is truth

a reply to: CranialSponge

Sadly I'm not sure what you (reasonably) say will be the case. As part of the presidential campaign, Trump stated he was opposed to pro choice, just as he's opposed to same sex marriage (although he's happy to attend one). The thing is, some people may have voted for him for those very reasons.

a reply to: windword

If he gives the authority back to the states, then won't these types of important decisions be made by the majority of people in those states?

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: windword

If he gives the authority back to the states, then won't these types of important decisions be made by the majority of people in those states?

Who is he? President Trump can't do it himself, it HAS to be ruled by the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court can't just write and edict. They have to have a case before them, to judge on its merit.

I'm asking people to imagine what kind of case could be presented that would compel the court to void Roe V Wade.

No one is going to overturn Roe v Wade.

It doesn't have popular support.

If you think there are demonstrations now, what do you think would happen if they outlawed abortion???

I would be out there demonstrating if they outlawed birth control.... and I am a guy.