Any attempt by Conservatives to overturn Roe v Wade is only going to galvanize and energize radical Democrats and give them renewed power and influence -- particularly over the female vote. We have more than enough trouble as it is without 'tilting at this windmill' any further. If these women want to kill the growth inside themselves, we MUST let them, and let that decision, and consequences (if any) rest with them ENTIRELY. Anything else is political SUICIDE....
To put this into perspective, Cy we need to go back in time to when the GOP was actively looking to recruit new voters. They found a single issue constituency amongst gun owners by using inflammatory fearmonging about "gun grabbers". They also used a similar tactic amongst single issue fundamentalist voters with inflammatory disinformation about abortion. The GOP then used the politics of personal destruction to demonize anyone who did not embrace these positions. While those strategies in place the GOP was able to achieve control of state legislatures and they used that power to enact bills that would suppress minority votes and gerrymander districts to ensure that they retained control and achieve majorities in Congress. And here is where all of that background becomes relevant. The GOP actively did do everything that it could to stymie any and all attempts at enacting any form of sane and reasonable background checks. That was the "reward" that the 2nd Amendment single issue voters received in return for their support of Republican candidates. However when it comes to those who were anti-abortion it was ONLY at the State level that any action was ever taken. The GOP has had several opportunities where it had full control over BOTH houses of Congress AND the Executive Branch and NOT once did they ever attempt to pass legislation that would effectively repeal RvW. Compare that to the COUNTLESS failed attempts to repeal Obamacare and you will see the STARK CONTRAST. In essence the GOP did NOTHING but pay lip service to their single issue supporters who are anti-abortion. They did this on purpose because they feared losing those voters once it was passed into the Law of the Land. That fear was legitimate given the absence of any actual adherence to "values" by elected GOP representatives in Congress. So it is entirely understandable that the anti-abortionists grew ever more DESPERATE to achieve their goal of BANNING all abortions nationwide. Which beings us back to the situation that we face today. If the Al Ab Ama bill makes it to the SCOTUS and it effectively overturns RvW the MAJORITY of the women in our nation are going to take that personally. Right now they are already motivated by the BLOTUS's misogyny to the point where they have effectively retaken 40% of the Dem seats lost to the GOP since 2010. Banning abortion will turbocharge women to the point where not even seats in deep red states will be safe. We are facing a "perfect storm" of frustration driven violations of women's rights to an abortion triggering an uprising of the largest voting bloc in the nation to protect their rights. Being on the wrong side of the majority in this battle is not going to end well politically IMO.
I didn't Ginsberg did. Don't take my word for it vis-a-vis your statement “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” — Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard law professor “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose. … Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the … years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.” — Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun “The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations. … Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” — Archibald Cox, Harvard law professor, former U.S. Solicitor General “t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. This is not surprising. As a constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.” — Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania law professor “Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the Court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”— Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court “In the Court’s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.” — Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago law professor “Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy). … [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present [in Roe].” — Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor https://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/20/even-abortion-backers-admit-roe-vs-wade-was-a-terrible-decision/
Awesome. We can agree on that. And even though I basically support the Democrats I think of myself as a fiscal Conservative. But to me that doesn't necessitate cutting spending on social programs but rather finding ways to pay for that spending. America has been cutting taxes on the rich for decades and the only actual result I can see is an increasing national debt and hugh increases in the concentration of wealth at the top.
It's still illegal to kill babies in every state. Fetuses are NOT babies until they are born, yet most Pro-Choice supporters acknowledge many rights of the fetus after the first trimester.
I think that defense is a bit weak these days since a couple of States have passed Late term abortion legislation that even applies to born alive. Have you ever known a woman who miscarried a child they were already in love with?
1. Absolutely NO STATE in the U.S. has passed a law allowing abortion of already born babies, or of fetuses capable of birth, unless the life of the mother is at risk. Any suggestion otherwise are lies. 2. Miscarriages can happen anytime during gestation, & yes I've know women who miscarried during the third trimester. They were very upset about it.
Roe v Wade turned on viability, which changes every year through improvements in medicine. Roe allows states to restrict, even prohibit abortions once the state of viability has been reached,. So, as time marches on states will, under Roe, have the power to prohibit more and more abortions. Why does the pro-abortion crowd support and defend Roe?
1. I'm Pro-Choice, & I agree with you that technology is gradually changing the time for viability downward, & that will affect the abortion laws within the states over time. As a Pro-Choice supporter, there are four things I regard as supremely important. First, that abortion be available for those who want or need it throughout the first trimester. Second, That the life of the mother take precedence throughout gestation. Third, that rape & incest ALWAYS be kept as a viable reason for abortion. Fourth, that no one be allowed to make a decision on abortion against the wishes of the mother. 2. For me, Roe v Wade provided a well thought out ruling that served as a standard against which abortion issues could be worked out & guidelines for personal decisions made. It still does. It also provides a federal guideline, which is desperately needed. If every state makes its own guidelines, it will become impossibly complicated, because Americans are a fluid people who often relocate across state boundaries. No American wants to get into legal trouble for something that was totally legal in the state they moved from.
Most Americans support the law (Three-quarters of Americans say they want to keep in place the landmark Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade) and the fact that the law is flexible in defining the point of viability - the "interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid" rather than having defined "viability" as occurring at any specific week of gestation, accommodates advances in medical science. Currently, even with prompt and intensive neonatal support, a preterm fetus of less than 23 weeks' gestation has little chance of surviving outside of the womb. Surrendering the power over a woman's womb to anonymous bureaucrats and politicians, rather than respecting the woman's right to make her personal decisions for herself in consultation with her trusted medical and spiritual advisers, friends and family, is too much government intrusion for most folks before an actual person has developed during the gestative process.
NO, it does NOT. Gestation is 9 months and has been for eons....IT IS NOT GETTING FASTER NOR SHORTER. Fetuses are NOT growing faster. VIABILITY is between 23-28 weeks. The youngest baby kept alive was 21 weeks, ONE, and it needed lengthy EXPENSIVE care. . Another fetus at 21 weeks may not have made it...most don't....that's why that ONE was newsworthy. So you predict that fetus will be fully formed(VIABLE) at what? 3 months gestation?? Really? May I see your data on how gestation is getting shorter???? There is no "Pro-Abortion" crowd. There ARE decent people, called Pro- CHOICERS, who believe EVERONE has the right to their own body and will fight to preserve that right from nosy old busy bodies who have no life and want to stick their nose in other's lives.
I don't think it is surprising at all. In fact, I'd say most women still believe in babies. Which has nothing to do with being able to have a right to have the choice of abortion or not.
On the 2 political parties. Tax and Spend D's. Debt and Spend R's. Both spend, but 1 party tries to pay for spending.
Can you explain that statement? I think everyone believes fetuses exist... how can one not believe in fetuses? How can one " not believe" in babies ? They exist...I've seen many...
No, I don't. And that your couldn't expand on 'moral cover', means you don't either. And I asked, who's morals?
Those accepted by the society you live in. If one accepts that a fetus is an entity in and of itself rather than a developmental stage of a baby then you don't believe it's a baby so it's ok to kill it.
