What if Roe vs Wade is overturned?

[Jay74]

We have long hoped to see Roe vs Wade overturned. It is an abomination, not just because abortion is murder, but because the Supreme Court has no business writing laws. With that said…

What do you believe the consequences will be if Roe vs Wade is overturned?

I do fear that it may motivate many women who traditionally do not care to vote to go to the polls and support democrats soley on this issue, particularly since it is percieved to be a “women’s rights” issue. We may end up saying President Hilary.

Will those on the religious right reward conservatives for overturning Roe in great enough numbers to cancel out those who seek to punish them for overturning it?

At the very least, abortion will be in the hands of elected accountable legislators instead of judicial tyrants.

Hopefully, Roberts won’t be another letdown like O’Connor was.

 

[Benedictus]

Jay74:

What do you believe the consequences will be if Roe vs Wade is overturned?

If the decision were overturned, state laws would be effective. Since 1973, most states have passed laws legalizing abortion, so very little would change in most states.

 

[Lance]

Benedictus:

If the decision were overturned, state laws would be effective. Since 1973, most states have passed laws legalizing abortion, so very little would change in most states.

You are right, but the ‘red’ states would have a good chance of getting those state laws changed.

 

[swampfox]

The legislatures of blue states would retain a virtually unrestricted right to kill the unborn (and that would be in line with the value systems of most people in those states), while the red states would pass laws restricting abortions in various degrees. For example, most red states would prohibit partial birth abortion or even prohibit third term abortions, would require parental notification, etc. The bottom line is that the laws on abortion would again be in the hands of the people and their elected representatives and the issue would be open to debate and political action. No longer could the pro abortion forces use the US Constitution to stifle any debate on the morality, legality and advisability of the heinous practice.

 

[TPJCatholic]

swampfox,

Yes, and there would be lives saved.

 

[Jay74]

swampfox:

No longer could the pro abortion forces use the US Constitution to stifle any debate on the morality, legality and advisability of the heinous practice.

I agree, save for one point – I’d change “pro abortion forces use the US Constitution to stifle any debate” to “pro abortion forces misuse the US Constitution to stifle any debate.”

Abortion has nothing to do with privacy, most judges know it, they just tie it to anything they can to substitute their will for law.

 

[milimac]

I look with great hope that Roe v. Wade will be overturned soon. I hope it’s sooner than the 40-year anniversary, but it would definitely be symbolic for it to be overturned after 40 years of wandering in a lifeless desert.

I would think the next step would be to challenge the constitutionality of the state laws that permit abortion. Depriving an entire class of people of their right to life seems like a nation-wide constitutional issue. Could state legislatures theoretically allow slavery in their state? Wouldn’t our U.S. Constitution prevent this? Seems like a similar thing for the unborn.

I also think we have to step up our efforts to reduce demand for abortions – 1.5 million per year won’t disappear just because it’s made illegal. Financial relief to poor women giving birth, smoother adoption procedures, flexible workplaces for single mothers, shelters for women kicked out of their homes, stiff fines for back-alley doctors, higher penalties for abuse of pregnant women, etc. We can’t forget that there will be women who will be under great stress and physical and/or emotional abuse because of their pregnancies.

 

[Curtiss]

I really wonder if women would come out in force to support Hilary or the pro-death movement? Over the 30 some years since RvW, the country has become slowly but steadily more anti-abortion and, yet, I believe also more secular. The religious population has become more verbal but not, I think, signinficantly more numerous.

So, where has the truely dramatic change in the view on abortion come from? I think that the abortion providers have been creating their own opposition. We always believed that abortion hurt women. Why should we be surprised to see it proved out? Also, the young - typically the most liberal sector of society - have a strong anti-abortion bent. Why? Are they learning it at their mothers’ knees?

The liberals may be in for a big surprise!

Best regards,
Curtiss

 

[Maccabees]

THe advantage of having Roe V Wade being overturned besides the ban on most type of abortions in some Red States would be some regulations on abortions in blue states which most people have a problem with like partial-birth abortion and parental notification. Right now states have problems even enforcing those minor restraints on abortion.
So rolling back Roe v Wade is not a panacea for abortion but in effect put some limits as these rights would go back to the states and would go back to the people and still most people have a problem with their 14 year old daughter having an abortion without their consent and having an 8 month old unborn baby infanticide even if they are pro-abortion the first trimester. (this is typical thought process of many so called moderates)

 

[Philip_P]

Overturning Roe v. Wade, on its own, would not significantly change abortion rates. The immediate effect is that abortion legislation devolves back to the states, many of which would allow it in some form or another. It’s worth keeping in mind that while most Americans support abortion restrictions, they also support keeping it legal. The red/blue divide doesn’t hold up either; most states are more “purple,” than monolithically red or blue. Plus, non-surgical abortions (i.e. abortificant pills) will likely increase in availability even as access to surgical abortions declines.

The only way to truly end abortion is to push the consistent ethic of life – abortion kills people, and killing people is wrong (this is why it’s a mistake to discount issues such as capital punishment – the debate shifts from “most vulnerable” to “most innocent,” which undermines the idea of inherent sanctity of life). Unless a change of the legal landscape is accompanied by, if not preceded by, an embrace of a consistent ethic, don’t expect much progress on abortion. If the legal changes precede the cultural, what we can expect is anything from flat-out inefficacious law to a deepening and extremely harmful national polarization.

On the electoral level, overturning Roe v. Wade helps the Democrats and splinters the GOP. Whether you think this is good or bad depends on your political sympathies, but with abortion no longer an albatross around the Dem’s neck and it no longer being an issue to unify the social conservatives and corporate interest wings of the GOP, it’s hard to see how this wouldn’t be the case.

 

[buffalo]

As the Holy Father said - Peace in the world has to begin with Peace in the Womb. It would be a huge leap.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Philip,

It is not an “either, or” situation. We should change the civil laws, while we concurrently work to convert the culture.

 

[Philip_P]

TPJCatholic:

Philip,

It is not an “either, or” situation. We should change the civil laws, while we concurrently work to convert the culture.

I’m just cautioning against unreasonable expecations on the judicial front, and I’m worried about the identification of “pro-life” with “conservative American politics.” Pro-life crosses partisan lines. I am to the left of many on these forums, this being an intensely conservative site, yet we are all pro-life and Catholic here.

The strength of the Church is its universality (catholicism). To be an effective voice in the public sphere, we must be both non-partisan and bipartisan. Abortion, and other cultural failings, require both conservative and liberal approaches.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

Abortion, and other cultural failings, require both conservative and liberal approaches.

Hmmm, what is the liberal pro-life approach to abortion?

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

Hmmm, what is the liberal pro-life approach to abortion?

Create an environment where women do not choose abortions. They don’t just wake up one morning and say “hey, I think I’ll have an abortion.” There are reasons they choose to do so. Address those reasons and they are much less likely to choose abortion.

If you like, here’s the liberal vs conservative approach translated into Republicanese: Conservatives address the suppy side of abortion. T Liberals address the demand side.

As TPJ has pointed out, it shouldn’t be either/or.

However, as I’ve responded, unfortunately it is, at least for now.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

Create an environment where women do not choose abortions. They don’t just wake up one morning and say “hey, I think I’ll have an abortion.” There are reasons they choose to do so. Address those reasons and they are much less likely to choose abortion.

If you like, here’s the liberal vs conservative approach translated into Republicanese: Conservatives address the suppy side of abortion. T Liberals address the demand side.

As TPJ has pointed out, it shouldn’t be either/or.

However, as I’ve responded, unfortunately it is, at least for now.

So then the liberal approach to dealing with the demand for abortions would/could be:

Allowing morality to be taught in schools again?

Teaching our children in our public schools that sexual activity need not be inevitable and that waiting till one is married is not just the right and moral thing to do but is in the best interest of the nation?

Would that be a part of the liberal approach?

 

[buffalo]

thestickman:

So then the liberal approach to dealing with the demand for abortions would/could be:

Allowing morality to be taught in schools again?

Teaching our children in our public schools that sexual activity need not be inevitable and that waiting till one is married is not just the right and moral thing to do but is in the best interest of the nation?

Would that be a part of the liberal approach?

Gotcha!

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

So then the liberal approach to dealing with the demand for abortions would/could be:

Allowing morality to be taught in schools again?

Teaching our children in our public schools that sexual activity need not be inevitable and that waiting till one is married is not just the right and moral thing to do but is in the best interest of the nation?

Would that be a part of the liberal approach?

Teaching responsible sexual behavior is certainly “liberal.” You do, of course, realize that not all Americans share the same sexual mores? That is, one could not teach that sex can only take place in marriage, or that contraception is wrong (sure, as Catholics we believe that, but to argue that Catholic morality is the only acceptable one for all Americans is, well, unamerican). Nonetheless, responsible behavior is a concept that all people can understand. So the stress should be on responsible sexual behavior. If your faith tradition teaches abstinence, follow it. If it does not, use contraception. Also, I think there would be few objections to pointing out how it is healthier to limit one’s partners.

Mainstream liberals would find such a pluralistic, pragmatic approach acceptable.

 

[Philip_P]

Now in return, would conservatives support measures making it easier for women in less than ideal family situations to bear and raise children? Measures such as increased funding for early childhood education such as head start, increased maternity leave protections and disability insurance, support for public transit which many lower income people rely on to get to work and get their children to school, opposition to practices such as capital punishment that say violence is the solution to our problems…?

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

Now in return, would conservatives support measures making it easier for women in less than ideal family situations to bear and raise children?

Nope. Because it has zip to do with the cause or reason there’s ever been a demand for abortion.

Measures such as increased funding for early childhood education such as head start, increased maternity leave protections and disability insurance, support for public transit which many lower income people rely on to get to work and get their children to school, opposition to practices such as capital punishment that say violence is the solution to our problems…?

Nope. Because none of your proposals has zip with the demand for abortion which is now and always a moral issue–of personal responsibility, not a public funding issue. No one get’s pregnant because they didn’t have public transportation, bad insurance or went to head-start or not.

That is, one could not teach that sex can only take place in marriage,

Why not? When was that law passed?

or that contraception is wrong (sure, as Catholics we believe that, but to argue that Catholic morality is the only acceptable one for all Americans is, well, unamerican).

Our Catholic schools are teaching these things and the world hasn’t come to an end, has it? I remember growing up in a time when out-of-wedlock pregnancy was something to be ashamed of…with good reason. Now it’s just accepted and no one acts like anything wrong or immoral has taken place.

The contraception argument is invalid if abstainence till marriage is taught AND is praised as a way to end the destruction of the family system and such. Sheesh, just looking at the near destruction of the black american family in the inner city is evidence enough to throw that argument in the trash–where it belongs!