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

  • Thread starter Thread starter HeWillProvide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
royal_archer said:
The constitution does not protect a “right to murder”

Roe vs Wade was a bad decision based on a minor perceived ambiguity. A new case with a better court could legitimately result in a verdict that states do have the right under the 10th ammendment to regulate abortion.
Click to expand...
Well, the Supreme Court ruled a woman had a constitutional right to an abortion. So, the right stands even if some disagree with it. That’s where the issue of state interference in a constitutional right arises.

States have no right under any constitutional provision to limit the exercise of a US Constitutional right. The Tenth deals with powers of the Feds and states. It does not give states the power to limit US Constitutional rights. The people lose no onstitutional rights because of the Tenth.
 
WillieWonka said:
Well, the Supreme Court ruled a woman had a constitutional right to an abortion. So, the right stands even if some disagree with it. That’s where the issue of state interference in a constitutional right arises.

States have no right under any constitutional provision to limit the exercise of a US Constitutional right. The Tenth deals with powers of the Feds and states. It does not give states the power to limit US Constitutional rights. The people lose no onstitutional rights because of the Tenth.
Click to expand...
They ruled as it applies to that case at that time. A future court could determine that other anti abortion laws are constitutional.

To completely ban the murder of children we will need a constitutional ammendment to fix the erroneous ruling of the past. However, there are many things we can do now to chip away at abortions until that time.
 
royal_archer said:
They ruled as it applies to that case at that time. A future court could determine that other anti abortion laws are constitutional.

To completely ban the murder of children we will need a constitutional ammendment to fix the erroneous ruling of the past. However, there are many things we can do now to chip away at abortions until that time.
Click to expand...
They did rule on the appeal before them, but the decision recognized all women had a right to have an abortion. That is binding on all states, DC, and territories.

I agree a future court could render a different decision.

Remember that constitutional amendments can be reversed, too. At a federal level it happened with prohibtion, and we’ll probably see it at state levels when amendments aimed at gay marriage are repealed.

So, no legislation, court decision, or constitutinal amendment will guarantee you what you want.

We should also recognize the war on drugs has been a dismal failure. Does anyone think the pills used to induce early term abortion can ever be kept off the streets?
 
Roe V Wade has about as much chance of being overturned as Brown v Board of Ed.
 
WillieWonka said:
So, suppose RvW was overturned by the Supreme Court. Then the issue is no longer centralized, but is up to the legislatures in 50 states. Abortion was available in some form in 12 states before RvW. The states will simply enact it in law.
Click to expand...
If the Supreme Court had changed enough to overturn RvW, perhaps the state legislature at that time would be changed as well and make the same decision.
 
WillieWonka said:
States have passed such laws, but nobody paid much attention to them. They were a way for legislatures to patronize and get votes from anti-abortion folks. The pro-abortion folks didn’t care much because they see no real chance RvW will be overturned. If that happened, those laws would be squashed like bugs because people want abortion to be available. (Catholics attitudes towards abortion are the same as the ation as a whole.)

The bishops lost all their influence and credibility when they got caught in the priest sex abuse scandal. They really had been respected by a wide ange of people of all religions until then.
Click to expand...
Too much generalization here.

Some Catholics’ attitudes do not reflect everyone’s.

Also, the Church, since the beginning, has withstood the slams that bad apples within had garnered, yet millions worldwide will continue to respect and follow the true Church and its respectable leaders.
 
HeWillProvide said:
Too much generalization here.

Some Catholics’ attitudes do not reflect everyone’s.

Also, the Church, since the beginning, has withstood the slams that bad apples within had garnered, yet millions worldwide will continue to respect and follow the true Church and its respectable leaders.
Click to expand...
I agree some Caholics’ attitudes do not reflect all Catholic attitudes. But the percentage of Catholics who say abortion should be generally available, limited, or prohibited very closely mirror the general population.

Millions do follow the Church, but we can see most have abandoned it on artificial birth control, and only 28% say abortion should be completely prohibited.
pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

The Church will probably continue on, but society will go in a different direction.
 
royal_archer said:
a focused effort that is not expressley to prohibit abortions but to reinforce states rights to make such laws.
Click to expand...
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.
 
All the back and forth about laws and constitutional guarentees is interesting but it misses a rather basic point in my humble opinion.

We do not live in a religious state. We live in a Secular state that, until fairly recently, was governed by people who held similar Spiritual and Social norms.
This has been eroded by the increasing “Liberalization” of society.
It is not just abortion, but gay rights, womens issues, immigration issues, and other items that have resulted in a reexamination of what it means to have a country built on “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. In this reexamination, the old social norms were looked at in light of the Christian principles upon which they were based and much was found lacking and hypocritical among those espousing them. Just look at how much was made about the “catholics” voting for Obama. How “marginalized” was the catholic “block” seen after that.
All of the above points to our reaching a point in this country where we have a "freer’ but less “accountable”, less “neighborly” society. We also have a far less “Spiritual” society and this is reflected in the Laws which continue to shift more toward hedonism.

So what does all of this mean?

It means that we as Christians are placed more and more in a position similar to the early centuries. (Remember that Christians weren’t always fed to lions in the early days. There were periods of tolerance as well) Where the bulk of the society was pagan, or were nothing at all - Where those in society “Go with the flow” in order to “get by”. The Christian in those days was seen as wierd, and definitely an outsider, but the pagans wondered at them and said, “Look at how they Love one Another”.

Personally I do not see society changing soon, nor do I see RvW being overturned. In fact I look for things to get worse - much worse. This is why I say that education (And Evangelization) are what is needed. Until people accept that they are killing babies the law won’t change and once they accept it the law far less necessary.

Changing laws will not change peoples hearts. Make abortion illegal and illegal abortions will be performed. Convince people that they carry a human child in their belly and abortion will not be performed whether legal or not.

Love, Educate, Pray, Evangelize, Love, Pray, Educate, Pray, Love, Picket, Pray, Educate… Change hearts… Change minds…Change actions…= Save Children.

Peace
James
 
Until and unless Roe is reversed there will be no progress made in limiting abortions. Even if Roe is reversed that will only be the first step in what will be a very lengthy and bitter battle over abortion rights but that debate will not even begin as long as Roe is in place.

Getting Roe reversed of course can only happen if a sufficient number of justices are appointed who are not wedded to abortion rights … and who will have the courage to make a ruling that would be met with probably the greatest opposition of any judgment in history. Roe was badly decided; I think even its supporters realize that (those who understand the law anyway). The strongest argument against overturning it is not that it was correctly ruled but that it is now settled law. This is how Sotomayor guaranteed her support for Roe. The problem with that dodge however is that bad law can never be settled law.

Without a conservative - at a minimum, a Republican - president there will never be such judges appointed to SCOTUS, but the anti-abortion electorate is split with a large number of them voting for pro-abortion candidates. For other reasons of course but the outcome is the same: being pro-abortion is not a hindrance to getting elected.

The bishops are in large measure responsible for this, at least with regard to Catholics, inasmuch as over half of all Catholics voted for Obama despite his being the most pro-abortion candidate in presidential history. Until the bishops take a stand against not just abortion but the politicians who support it, such politicians will continue to be elected and Roe will continue to be the law of the land.

Ender
 
JRKH said:
All the back and forth about laws and constitutional guarentees is interesting but it misses a rather basic point in my humble opinion.

We do not live in a religious state. We live in a Secular state that, until fairly recently, was governed by people who held similar Spiritual and Social norms.
This has been eroded by the increasing “Liberalization” of society.
It is not just abortion, but gay rights, womens issues, immigration issues, and other items that have resulted in a reexamination of what it means to have a country built on “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. In this reexamination, the old social norms were looked at in light of the Christian principles upon which they were based and much was found lacking and hypocritical among those espousing them. Just look at how much was made about the “catholics” voting for Obama. How “marginalized” was the catholic “block” seen after that.
All of the above points to our reaching a point in this country where we have a "freer’ but less “accountable”, less “neighborly” society. We also have a far less “Spiritual” society and this is reflected in the Laws which continue to shift more toward hedonism.

So what does all of this mean?

It means that we as Christians are placed more and more in a position similar to the early centuries. (Remember that Christians weren’t always fed to lions in the early days. There were periods of tolerance as well) Where the bulk of the society was pagan, or were nothing at all - Where those in society “Go with the flow” in order to “get by”. The Christian in those days was seen as wierd, and definitely an outsider, but the pagans wondered at them and said, “Look at how they Love one Another”.

Personally I do not see society changing soon, nor do I see RvW being overturned. In fact I look for things to get worse - much worse. This is why I say that education (And Evangelization) are what is needed. Until people accept that they are killing babies the law won’t change and once they accept it the law far less necessary.

Changing laws will not change peoples hearts. Make abortion illegal and illegal abortions will be performed. Convince people that they carry a human child in their belly and abortion will not be performed whether legal or not.

Love, Educate, Pray, Evangelize, Love, Pray, Educate, Pray, Love, Picket, Pray, Educate… Change hearts… Change minds…Change actions…= Save Children.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
That’s the best idea on this entire thread, IMHO.
 
Roe does not need to be overturned. I posted this here before, but good things are worth repeating:

From a scientific standpoint, we have to refer to the mess that started it all: Roe v. Wade.

In Section IX, the Court added that there was no legal grounds for factoring into this balancing test any right to life of the unborn fetus. The fetus would have such a right if it were defined as a legal person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the original intent of the Constitution (up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868) did not include protection of the unborn. The Court emphasized that its determination of whether a fetus can enjoy constitutional protection neither meant to reference, nor intervene in, the question of when life begins: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

When life begins could easily be answered with today’s science and technology. At that point, any state has the right to encode the life question into law. None have successfully done it yet, but they are trying in places like South Dakota.
 
ahollars said:
"… the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

When life begins could easily be answered with today’s science and technology. At that point, any state has the right to encode the life question into law. None have successfully done it yet, but they are trying in places like South Dakota.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point and one would hope that some state would challenge Roe on just this issue. Given the makeup of the current court, reversing Roe is not in the foreseeable future but this approach has the additional advantage of easing the response of the existing court should they rule against Roe. It might well get the support of Justice Kennedy which would almost surely make it 5-4 for approval of such a measure.

Just because it is known with scientific certainty when life begins is not to say that that will be sufficient for SCOTUS. There is no doubt that even if such a bill was passed by a state legislature it would be appealed to the Supreme Court; they still have the last say.

Ender
 
The left has worked for the past 35 years to frame the issues and has suceeded in their effort at dehumanizing the concieved baby and championing the “civil rights” of the mother, having claimed the label of PRO-choice, and labelled those who honor the life in the womb negatively, as ANTI abortion. Over the course of a generation, abortion has become a part of the American fabric - that does not make it ethical, moral or right, it simply is. Justice Scalia, the moral compass of the Supreme Court has acknowledged that it is most unlikely that the court will overturn Roe.
If indeed such an overwhelming majority of Americans support murdering babies, why then should not the issue be before elected officials in legislatures to implement the will of the people? Is it perhaps because an overwhelmiong portion of the poulation does not support infantacide?
There was a time in our society when slavery was a part of the American fabric. There was a time when seperate but equal was a part of the American fabric. Truth trumped both injustices. Truth will trump killing babies. When Roe was decided, the Court “justified” its absurd position in the chimera that it was scientifically capable of determining when life begins or when a baby is “viable” (isn’t that a sacry concept - think about how “viable” we will all be in later life). Modern medical science shows us the daily development of the miricla that God enacts in the womb, and those magnificent physicians and nurses working in neonatal intensive care units across the country nurture babies as small as 24 ounces, into healthy children. Those truths are being disseminated, BUT, we must champion the rights of the unborn as Christians, prayerfully preaching the message, not in an in your face hateful manner. The message that we must convey is the truth of God’s miracle, which will not be a popular message in our narcissistic world, however, the message of God that Paul preached so many years ago found him chased out of town many times, but did not dissuade him from the mission that the Holy Spirit gave to him. In like manner, we must take up the mission that the Holy Spirit has tasked us to perform and prayerfully preach the truth. No one can hear, see or understand what the truth is about the human miricle really is in the womb, and believe that it is a meaningless tussue mass that can be discarded as a piece of trash. Truth will win hearts, and won hearts will abolish Roe v Wade. Pray for the unborn.
 
There is already talk now about not using ultrasounds so parents can see their baby…I think it is a red herring…because there are parents out there who will want to see the baby earlier and earlier…and it will prove the baby is a human.

But changing the laws will be pretty hard to do.

I see change coming about through the working class poor who vote and are responsible citizens.

What comes to my mind is that we need our young people to go out into their neighborhoods and developing relationships with them, helping them with food, clothing and shelter…Laying down their lives for them. And in the change that is coming to our country, some day this could even become more difficult.

But I believe that when open people see the witness of Christian lives reaching out to them, seeing them endure inconveniences or use of time for them, it can ignite something in their souls to start seeing beyond face value. This self emptying for the sake of the God gives the hope poor. And when they see people laying down their lives for them, they begin to see the value of suffering, of redemptive suffering. Without human witness, hope in God and human suffering makes no sense.

When they ask, ‘Why are you doing this for me?’ …that is when you then say it is because of Jesus. Jesus loves you. I love you.

I can see young people leading these people into churches, and then the parishioners continuing the ministry of further caring for them.

When poor people see others caring for them in the name of Christ, they then can convert to Christ, and then when they see the value of self emptying and enduring hardships for them, they then can recognize the value of hope and suffering. Once they understand these two points – through the presence of Christ, then they have hope for all human life, then is when you can say abortion is wrong. That is when they will change and vote against abortion,

It depends on us.
 
katgee said:
There is already talk now about not using ultrasounds so parents can see their baby…I think it is a red herring…because there are parents out there who will want to see the baby earlier and earlier…and it will prove the baby is a human.

But changing the laws will be pretty hard to do.

I see change coming about through the working class poor who vote and are responsible citizens.

What comes to my mind is that we need our young people to go out into their neighborhoods and developing relationships with them, helping them with food, clothing and shelter…Laying down their lives for them. And in the change that is coming to our country, some day this could even become more difficult.

But I believe that when open people see the witness of Christian lives reaching out to them, seeing them endure inconveniences or use of time for them, it can ignite something in their souls to start seeing beyond face value. This self emptying for the sake of the God gives the hope poor. And when they see people laying down their lives for them, they begin to see the value of suffering, of redemptive suffering. Without human witness, hope in God and human suffering makes no sense.

When they ask, ‘Why are you doing this for me?’ …that is when you then say it is because of Jesus. Jesus loves you. I love you.

I can see young people leading these people into churches, and then the parishioners continuing the ministry of further caring for them.

When poor people see others caring for them in the name of Christ, they then can convert to Christ, and then when they see the value of self emptying and enduring hardships for them, they then can recognize the value of hope and suffering. Once they understand these two points – through the presence of Christ, then they have hope for all human life, then is when you can say abortion is wrong. That is when they will change and vote against abortion,

It depends on us.
Click to expand...
You’ve hit on something that I’ve noticed about Christians in the last 20 years-a rise in the interest of having government codify beliefs instead of doing the work that brings others to want what Christians have. It’s a LOT easier to vote for a candidate that tells you that he/she will make abortion illegal, ban gay marriage, keep illegal immigrants out and restore prayer in school than it is to do the things you suggest in your post. Not only is it less work, but it also leaves the Christian blameless if the “wrong” person gets elected.
 
True…

The seculars and utopians --those that think mankind can create perfect governments–want government to take the place of the family and religion.

We need to be open to the life of Christ…and that is shown best by total renunciation of self and living the gospel…

I forgot to add that these future laborers will also look upon the poor as sacred…and that treatment comes from sustained prayer and contemplation from the Eucharistic Lord.

We are living in mission land. This work I mentioned is primarily that of the single people. What a wonderful way to use your time in community with others is to go out to serve the poor in Christ. And I also need to mention the constant prayer of the rosary in going out.

Best work will be going under the radar, in the Catholic tradition of evangelization, quiet, steady, self-effacing, use of reason and education, and reaching people on their level.
 
IMHO, overturning Roe vs Wade is a pipe dream and wishful thinking.

As for the American Bishops, if they spent half of their time and resources and minds as they did on the “3rd Edition of the Roman Missal” then more Catholics would not have voted for Obama. It seems a revision to the Roman Missal is more important then the abortion issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top