What do you think must occur to realistically overturn Roe v Wade?

[royal_archer]

States have no rights to intefere with a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. Such efforts will be so minor they will have no effect.

What line in the constitution specifically guarantees the right to murder children?

If such efforts are so minor as to have no effect then the baby killers should not interfer with passing such measures.

 

[WillieWonka]

What line in the constitution specifically guarantees the right to murder children?

If such efforts are so minor as to have no effect then the baby killers should not interfer with passing such measures.

There is no specific guarantee. The Supreme Court decision has the same standing. States have no rights to intefere with a right the US Supreme Court says is guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Such efforts are a nuisance, and that’s why they are opposed. They would also be opposed if imposed on any other medical procedure.

 

[royal_archer]

There is no specific guarantee. The Supreme Court decision has the same standing. States have no rights to intefere with a right the US Supreme Court says is guaranteed by the US Constitution…

If an activist ocurt can make up a new rulling, then an activist court can reverse it.

Such efforts are a nuisance, and that’s why they are opposed. They would also be opposed if imposed on any other medical procedure.

What other medical procedures specifically designed to kill people are you refering to?

 

[WillieWonka]

If an activist ocurt can make up a new rulling, then an activist court can reverse it.

What other medical procedures specifically designed to kill people are you refering to?

Sure they can reverse it. But until they do, the states can’t.

I’m not referring to any specific procedure. But, I suppose we could take gall bladder operations. If some activist group agitated to make gall bladder patients watch a movie, it would be a nuisance.

 

[royal_archer]

Sure they can reverse it. But until they do, the states can’t.

sure they can then if someone has a problem with it they take it to the courts and the new supreme court can rule on the new law.

I’m not referring to any specific procedure. But, I suppose we could take gall bladder operations. If some activist group agitated to make gall bladder patients watch a movie, it would be a nuisance.

Since when are gall bladder opperations meant to kill people?

 

[katgee]

My husband had inflamed gall bladder…terrible pain…misdiagnosed…9 kidney stones…neeed operation…they used the ‘bird cage’…got it done and he is fine.

A lady did die of gall bladder, terrible pain.

But a diseased part of the body is not the same as the human person.

 

[WillieWonka]

sure they can then if someone has a problem with it they take it to the courts and the new supreme court can rule on the new law.

Since when are gall bladder opperations meant to kill people?

Doesn’t work that way. The court will just refuse the case. But, if some people find that idea comforting, then I recommend they believe it. It doesn’t hurt anything.

I don’t know anything about gall baldders operations meant to kill people.

 

[WillieWonka]

My husband had inflamed gall bladder…terrible pain…misdiagnosed…9 kidney stones…neeed operation…they used the ‘bird cage’…got it done and he is fine.

A lady did die of gall bladder, terrible pain.

But a diseased part of the body is not the same as the human person.

Hope there weren’t a bunch of activists trying to get him to watch their movie. That would be a nuisance.

 

[fairytail3982]

sure they can then if someone has a problem with it they take it to the courts and the new supreme court can rule on the new law.

Since when are gall bladder opperations meant to kill people?

Maybe a better example would be elective surgeries like cosmetic surgery.

 

[WillieWonka]

Maybe a better example would be elective surgeries like cosmetic surgery.

Good point. I suppose some activists might want laws mandating face lift clients look at pictures of Joan Rivers and Burt Reynolds. That, too, would be a nuisance.

 

[miguel]

There is no specific guarantee. The Supreme Court decision has the same standing. States have no rights to intefere with a right the US Supreme Court says is guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Such efforts are a nuisance, and that’s why they are opposed. They would also be opposed if imposed on any other medical procedure.

If such efforts are a nuisance, the decision itself remains a menace. As you admit, there is no specific guarantee to abortion in the Constitution. The privacy rationale could be used to legalize any private criminal activity. And the majority on the Court, in decreeing it to be a Consitututional right, violated their oath of office (to uphold the Constitution) and abused their power. Are you saying the states must accept the abuse of federal judicial power?

 

[WillieWonka]

If such efforts are a nuisance, the decision itself remains a menace. As you admit, there is no specific guarantee to abortion in the Constitution. And a majority on the Court pretending there is doesn’t change that. This is the abuse of judicial power. Are you saying the states must accept the abuse of federal judicial power? Is there a line in the Constitution that says all Court decisions must be followed, constitutional or not? The privacy rationale could be used to legalize any private criminal activity.

Yes, the states must follow the decision. A great example of this is Brown v Board of Education where the Supreme Court struck down the “separate but equal” notion that the state could racially segregate kids in school. The opposition to this decision in some states was far stronger than current opposition to abortion.

 

[miguel]

Yes, the states must follow the decision…

I have no issue with decisions that are in fact Constitutional. Just because one or most Court decisions are Constitutionally legitimate, doesn’t mean all of them are.

 

[WillieWonka]

All tyrants want their decisions followed.

Sure. But if one is trying to change a situation, it is necessary to have accurate information. One doesn’t have to like a decision to understand how it effects all of us under our legal system.

 

[miguel]

Sure. But if one is trying to change a situation, it is necessary to have accurate information. One doesn’t have to like a decision to understand how it effects all of us under our legal system.

I edited my posts. In essence, just because one or even most Court decisions are Constitutional doesn’t mean they all are. We’re trying to focus on a decision that isn’t.

 

[WillieWonka]

I edited my posts. In essence, just because one or even most Court decisions are Constitutional doesn’t mean they all are. We’re trying to focus on a decision that isn’t.

That’s not how our system works. When the Supreme court rules, then its ruling is constitutional. One may disagree with the ruling, but there is no recourse after that unless 1) the consttution is changed, or 2) the Supreme Court reverses itself.

 

[miguel]

That’s not how our system works. When the Supreme court rules, then its ruling is constitutional. One may disagree with the ruling, but there is no recourse after that unless 1) the consttution is changed, or 2) the Supreme Court reverses itself.

Incoherent judicial decisions are not part of the Constitution. “They can stand me up at the gates of hell, but I won’t back down.” You forgot the recourse found in Article III, Section 2…Congressional regulation of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

 

[Brooklyn]

Several answers above are good ones.
However the biggest thing that is needed is education of the general public and an understanding of the ramifications of rampant abortions (over 4000/day nationwide).
This education must include greater mobilization of people to vote on this issue, and to come out in support of pro-life.
None of this will come about until the population is better educated to understand that the Child in the womb is a human being by any Scientific standard. Never mind about religion - keep it scientific. That “Tissue” growing independently within the mother, and containing the correct number of chromasones is, by sceintific definition a developing and changing human. It will remain a developing and changing human throughout it’s natural life cycle until the day it dies.
This is what we need to convince enough people of. Then the pressure to change the laws will be felt in the halls of government and the Courts and decisions will begin to reflect that belief. OR - Even if the law is not changed and abortion remains legal, the more people who see it as murder, the fewer abortions will be performed.

Call me a dreamer - But Education is the Key.

Peace
James

Excuse the outdated language, but right on! Msgr. Reilly here in Brooklyn who is a very active pro life priest (Fr. Groeschel calls him the Apostle of Life) says that abortion will not be overturned in the courts or the legislatures, but in the minds and hearts of people. Just as you say, James, people must be educated as to what abortion really is and what a terrible evil it is. That is how everything evil in our society has been overturned - slavery, child labor, civil rights, etc.

The key to overturning abortion does not lie with our politicians or the judicial system, but with the people themselves, with an educated populace.

Amen and Amen, James!

Mary

 

[WillieWonka]

Incoherent judicial decisions are not part of the Constitution. “They can stand me up at the gates of hell, but I won’t back down.” You forgot the recourse found in Article III, Section 2…Congressional regulation of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

No, I didn’t forget it. Congress can regulate courts, but it cannot vacate decisions.

Again, your opinion of incoherence has no legal standing.

I realize it is fashionable for anti-abortion folks to offer their personal interpretations of the constitution as reason for greivance. They rally around these opinions and hesitate to question them. But, the reason we have courts is because those opinions can differ so much.

Now, if these personal opinions had any weight, how come they haven’t done any good for the last 37 years?

 

[ConservativeOne]

So many good answers -
But if the politicians / doctors/abortion clinics / prospective mothers, etc., won’t listen to God, then why would they listen to an earthly court judge?
By the time God really speaks aloud to the universe - it will be too late.