States to become battleground if high court overturns Roe v. Wade

[bones_IV]

As Judge Samuel Alito Jr, moved towards Senate confirmation to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Conner on the U.S. Supreme Court, the vioces of those working to keep abortion legal in the United States are getting more worried.

They should be! We’re winning the war.

Link

 

[estesbob]

bones_IV:

As Judge Samuel Alito Jr, moved towards Senate confirmation to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Conner on the U.S. Supreme Court, the vioces of those working to keep abortion legal in the United States are getting more worried.

They should be! We’re winning the war.

Link

Pro-abortion advocates greatest fear is that the people will be able to voice their opinion about this abomination. And we are winning the war. And Roe V Wade will be overturned and then we must gird ourselves for another battle-a state by state battle over the lives of the unborn

 

[bones_IV]

estesbob:

Pro-abortion advocates greatest fear is that the people will be able to voice their opinion about this abomination. And we are winning the war. And Roe V Wade will be overturned and then we must gird ourselves for another battle-a state by state battle over the lives of the unborn

Yet, when the records of Pius XII from 1939-1958 are opened, the media will have false hopes of finding Pius guilty. They will find none, and the Vatican will give them an answer they don’t want to hear. But its like St. Augustine said, “Sin blinds the conscience”. Lord forgive them, they know not what they do! We should pray for them.

 

[Brain]

I know the comparison is a tired cliche, but it shows that Roe can be overturned without kicking it back to the states.

Plessy said that segregation was okay anywhere bases on segregation done in 1 particular case, Brown said segregation was not ok anywhere and the states no longer had the option of segregating due to a fundamental equality between people.

If roe would be overturned using a very strong ruling, say a declaration that an unborn baby is a person and is entitled to a fundamental right to life, the issue at stake would be higher law and could not be legally defied by the states.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

Unless the Supreme Court recognizes the personhood of the unborn, in which case all laws regarding persons also affect the unborn, such as making it murder to kill a human person.

 

[Brain]

thats what im sayin’

 

[rlg94086]

Interesting idea. Are there any Constitutional law experts on the Forum that can confirm that this is how it works? I’ve always thought giving rights to the unborn would need to come from an amendment.

Brain:

I know the comparison is a tired cliche, but it shows that Roe can be overturned without kicking it back to the states.

Plessy said that segregation was okay anywhere bases on segregation done in 1 particular case, Brown said segregation was not ok anywhere and the states no longer had the option of segregating due to a fundamental equality between people.

If roe would be overturned using a very strong ruling, say a declaration that an unborn baby is a person and is entitled to a fundamental right to life, the issue at stake would be higher law and could not be legally defied by the states.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

With a good definition of person, the amendment that freed the slaves and granted them equal rights can be applied to the unborn.

 

[rlg94086]

But where are definitions determined? Is that the court’s responsibility or the legislature?
T.A.Stobie:

With a good definition of person, the amendment that freed the slaves and granted them equal rights can be applied to the unborn.

 

[Brain]

the right is already in the constitution, it i simply a matter of applying it to those who hold it. Id think it woould be the coourts’ job.

 

[Magster]

To prevent the abortion issue from bouncing back to the states once Roe v. Wade and its progeny are overturned, we need a constitutional amendment defining that persons entitled to constitutional protections extends from the moment of conception until natural death.