You are making the false assumptino that “let’s criminalize” is the only goal. Yes, we want it illegal; however, pushing for that is only part of what we do. Assisting pregnant teens, encouraging adoption and educating people on the sanctity of life are also very important.
It’s always possible. Death or retirement are the reasons someone has to be replaced. The ages of the justices is below:
Hard to tell if you are serious or tongue in cheek on this one (isn’t that a shame that I can’t tell based on some posts I’ve seen on this Board).
I was completely unaware of that section in Roe; what intriguing possibilities that suggests. Regarding your comment above, it is not the courts province to decide that issue; I think they properly deferred from ruling on it.
Given the scientific evidence I think it likely that the court would not overrule a law that defined human life as beginning at conception. I wonder why no state legislature has undertaken to pass such a law.
I have said this before. Roughly 30 states would prohibit abortion, while some others would restrict it, and states like NY, NJ, CA, OR whose Constitutions all have privacy clauses would have virtually unlimited access.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. I’d be happy if I could work to get 30 states to outlaw abortion.
The Mann Act – which prohibits taking women across state lines “for immoral purposes” is just such a law.
You can’t take a woman from New Jersey to make her a prostitute – that would violate Federal law.
Will it?
I can most certainly take a woman from NJ, with her full consent, to Nevada to the “Bunny Ranch” and help her obtain a job there. The Federal government has no say in whether you can leave a state where prostitution is illegal and go where it is. That would nullify State’s rights and the ability of persons to freely choose where to live, work, or travel.
So when are you arguing the case before the Supreme Court?
So you want us to accept the word of a pro-abortion study cited in a pro-abortion newspaper? No thank you.
Under that philosophy, a person living in Arkansas could never leave that state, move to NJ and gamble or have an abortion. They would forever be prevented from doing either because both would have been illegal in their previous state.
If there were such a Federal law – but there is not.
But not of Federal laws – and Federal laws that prohibit crossing state lines for nefarious purposes are plentiful.
You might want to read what you just wrote, and edit it out.
You’re getting there.
But when they cross a state line, they come under Federal law, if there is one covering what they intend to do when they get there.
I stand corrected. Believe it or not,that is what I meant to say. Thanks for the correction.
President Clinton did not veto that bill when it came before him, President Bush did.
But I thought that the point of people voting Republican was to “end abortion.” I didn’t know the whole issue was about civil punishment (which should be what, by the way - throwing women in jail?)
Everyone concedes that point. That isn’t the end of the issue. Roe v Wade would only be a first step in regards to making abortion illegal. After it is overturned, states can pass their own laws and/or we can continue to work towards an Amendment to the Constitution protecting the unborn.
How is it less of a crime to kill a child in January than to kill that same child the following December?
Neither does passing laws against rape, murder, and bank robbery end those crimes. Do you suggest we ought then to repeal those laws?