Would you support overturning Roe v. Wade?

[Woody]

Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned or remain intact?

[Suburbia]

No, leave it alone.

I am personally pro-life but I don't get involved.

It is a private, personal decision. Let the woman and her family bear the consequences.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yes, and without reservation.

[Ichabod]

No. IMO, maybe Roe was too far too fast, but the other options that pro-fetus people are proposing are totally insane

[junior chįmp]

Yes

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

No. abortions are going to happen whether it's legal or not, and if it's made illegal then these abortions will become incredibly unsafe and possibly fatal for the mothers. we can't go back to the era of back alley abortions.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, but abortion isn't necessary, male contraceptives, and the lowering of fatalities of HIV, is making abortions unnecessary.  Planned Parenthood was affirmed 6-3.

[TJ in Oregon]

Yes, obviously. It's a bad ruling that led to an even worse outcome.

[TJ in Oregon]

No, because I'm not a monster.

Why the need to insinuate this kind of stuff?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Yes, but the Supreme Court should go further and say that the 14th Amendment actually prohibits any state from legalizing abortion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I get what the OP means, but Roe was already overturned by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That said, White's dissent was entirely on point.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of when an embryo or fetus becomes a person, and as such the Court had no objective basis for making the decision that it legally is not. Absent an amendment to the Federal Constitution, this is an issue that should have been left to the State legislatures to decide.

It's not up to the Court to decide whether a policy is good or not, whether it is wise or not, or even if it is enforceable or not. The question is whether it is Constitutional or not, and when it comes to such things, I will always lean towards allowing the legislative branch to act absent a clear Constitutional reason it should not.

[RFayette]

Yes; even disregarding the question of personhood, abortion, like other elements of a penal code, should be decided at the state level.  

[brucejoel99]

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

No.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

There is no "right to privacy", let alone a "Fundamental Right To Privacy".

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

That's the 4th Amendment, and the standards by which a warrant to search can be obtained.

From Griswold v. Connecticut, Mr. Justice Black wrote:  ""I like my privacy as well as the next man. Unlike my brethren, I am simply unable to find a constitutional right to it."  There are rights that involve Privacy, and Roe v. Wade debates "penumbras" (zones of privacy), but there is no enumerated Constitutional right to "privacy".

[Person Man]

No

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

Even Roe itself states that the right to privacy does not trump all other considerations. Granted, Roe gave so little consideration to prenatal life, that it set viability outside the womb as the point where the government can act. However, Roe provides no justification for why the Constitution does not permit allowing greater consideration to prenatal life. Casey just punts on this issue and says it's because Roe says so.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

No

[Person Man]

Was there any case that was this serious or large of an issue where the Court just says what it did before was irrelevant? Even Brown versus KBOE didn’t overrule Plessy versus Ferguson. Simply it just said that the segregation standard set out in the latter was impossible to meet.

[LBJer]

No. abortions are going to happen whether it's legal or not, and if it's made illegal then these abortions will become incredibly unsafe and possibly fatal for the mothers. we can't go back to the era of back alley abortions.

Exactly.  I also voted no.  In addition, I don't think most abortions are immoral. 

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

Yes I would.

The states should have the power to kill babies or not. I personally believe it is capital murder.

[Senator Incitatus]

Yes. I am anti-abortion as a matter of policy and additionally believe that Roe is poor jurisprudential work.

[Indy Texas]

I get what the OP means, but Roe was already overturned by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[fhtagn]

Yes.

[Indy Texas]

I am in favor of women having unrestricted access to abortion, just as they have unrestricted access to any other medical procedure that has been approved and deemed appropriate by licensed physicians.

If people want to reduce the number of abortions performed in the US, they should support increased access to birth control and greater financial support for mothers of young children so that fewer women desire to have an abortion in the first place.

Unfortunately, most abortion opponents are more interested in punishing and controlling women than they are in anything else. (One only has to look at how they favor treating recently-born children like those being imprisoned by Donald Trump's ICE secret police, or those who cannot see a doctor because Republicans refuse to expand Medicaid.)

With hindsight, I regret Roe only because of the backlash it created. Without Roe, abortion access would likely have slowly been legalized piecemeal and would not be under the constant and sustained threat it is today.