Roe v. Wade

[Frodo]

I don't know if a poll like this has been done before (and if it has, I will delete this promptly), but in case it hasn't.......

[Yates]

No.  Even though I am an ardent opponent of abortion politically, I believe that the right to an abortion should remain for judicial reasons.

[A18]

There's a Constitution board

[dazzleman]

Yes.  I think the ruling has distorted our political process for 33 years, and is a particularly egregious example of judicial activism, and has had no end of ill effects for our form of government.

The issue should be turned over to the state legislatures, where it should have been left in the first place.  And you know what will change effectively -- nothing.  The state legislatures, on balance, will vote to keep early term abortions legal and place restrictions on late term abortions.  That is what the American people want.  Those who oppose this should lobby legislators for change, not courts.  The states that would put more restrictive bans on abortion effectively offer little access to abortion at this point anyway, so there's no real change there.

[Frodo]

Yes.  I think the ruling has distorted our political process for 33 years, and is a particularly egregious example of judicial activism, and has had no end of ill effects for our form of government.

The issue should be turned over to the state legislatures, where it should have been left in the first place.  And you know what will change effectively -- nothing.  The state legislatures, on balance, will vote to keep early term abortions legal and place restrictions on late term abortions.  That is what the American people want.  Those who oppose this should lobby legislators for change, not courts.  The states that would put more restrictive bans on abortion effectively offer little access to abortion at this point anyway, so there's no real change there.

My opinion exactly -though it would shift the Democratic Party even further to the left with multitudes of younger newly-initiated feminists dominating the primaries and making abortion even more of a litmus test than it already is. 

Still, for the sake of this nation, I guess it's worth the price. 

[memphis]

Yes.  I think the ruling has distorted our political process for 33 years, and is a particularly egregious example of judicial activism, and has had no end of ill effects for our form of government.

The issue should be turned over to the state legislatures, where it should have been left in the first place.  And you know what will change effectively -- nothing.  The state legislatures, on balance, will vote to keep early term abortions legal and place restrictions on late term abortions.  That is what the American people want.  Those who oppose this should lobby legislators for change, not courts.  The states that would put more restrictive bans on abortion effectively offer little access to abortion at this point anyway, so there's no real change there.

I agree with dazzleman on something. Amazing!

[dazzleman]

Yes.  I think the ruling has distorted our political process for 33 years, and is a particularly egregious example of judicial activism, and has had no end of ill effects for our form of government.

The issue should be turned over to the state legislatures, where it should have been left in the first place.  And you know what will change effectively -- nothing.  The state legislatures, on balance, will vote to keep early term abortions legal and place restrictions on late term abortions.  That is what the American people want.  Those who oppose this should lobby legislators for change, not courts.  The states that would put more restrictive bans on abortion effectively offer little access to abortion at this point anyway, so there's no real change there.

My opinion exactly -though it would shift the Democratic Party even further to the left with multitudes of younger newly-initiated feminists dominating the primaries and making abortion even more of a litmus test than it already is. 

Still, for the sake of this nation, I guess it's worth the price. 

I think any political effects from overturning Roe vs. Wade would be temporary.  Getting rid of this bad ruling would help Democrats in the sense that the radical feminists among them would no longer be able to burden them with the requirement of defending the ruling, and of going to ridiculous lengths to defend a total lack of restrictions, even those favored by 75% majorities.  It would also energize abortion supporters.

But that would all pass.  The legislatures would settle the issue in a way that the Supreme Court never did, because if it had, abortion suporters wouldn't be sitting here 33 years later sweating bullets over every Supreme Court appointment.  Ironically, the overturning of Roe vs. Wade could be the best thing to happen for legalized abortion, because abortion laws passed by legislatures would be far more durable in the long run than Roe vs. Wade.

At the same time, a settling of the abortion issue could also lead Republicans to pick up voters who may support them on other issues but not abortion.  I suspect that overturning Roe vs. Wade could lead to a political landslide and major realignment, and that would probably be a good thing, on balance, in that it would most likely reduce the prominence of social issues in voting.

[TeePee4Prez]

No.  State legislatures are poor representation of the electorate on this issue and I'm glad the Federal government stepped in to balance it out.  In states like Pennsylvania, a clear majority say of 20 points, is pro-choice.  You wouldn't know that if you looked at our legislative roster because you know why, and this is something the Supreme Court should have taken care of- GERRYMANDERING! 

[Ebowed]

Yes (D)

In states like Pennsylvania, a clear majority say of 20 points, is pro-choice.

Where did you get that figure?  Just curious.

[TeePee4Prez]

Yes (D)

In states like Pennsylvania, a clear majority say of 20 points, is pro-choice.

Where did you get that figure?  Just curious.

Most recent SUSA poll done on choice.

[Jake]

The one that listed the options, pro-choice and pro-life? Yeah, that was trash and you know it.

[dazzleman]

No.  State legislatures are poor representation of the electorate on this issue and I'm glad the Federal government stepped in to balance it out.  In states like Pennsylvania, a clear majority say of 20 points, is pro-choice.  You wouldn't know that if you looked at our legislative roster because you know why, and this is something the Supreme Court should have taken care of- GERRYMANDERING! 

By this logic, legislatures, including the US House, shouldn't have control over anything.  It should all go to the Supreme Court, which clearly represents the will of the people better than a recently elected legislature.  Same would be true of the US Senate, since it doesn't have proportional representation.  That must be unconstitutional -- except for the fact that the constitution explicitly sets up the Senate.

I think you're mixing up your arguments.  The job of the courts is not to take over when legislatures don't make the 'right' decisions, but to operate in a very narrow zone of protecting the bedrock rights of people from a majority that may want to take them away.  I don't believe abortion falls into this category, and I think there was never any reason to take the issue from the legislatures.  It was judicial activism of the worst kind, during an era replete with examples of it.

[Speed of Sound]

Never. Roe v. Wade is good for America, though a cutback on third trimester abortions would be nice.

[opebo]

Of course not.  Bans on abortion are unconstitutional violations of the right to privacy.

[WalterMitty]

yes, roe v. wade should be overturned.  it is a state issue.

i, of course, completely support legalized abortion.  but it should be decided at the state level.

[dazzleman]

yes, roe v. wade should be overturned.  it is a state issue.

i, of course, completely support legalized abortion.  but it should be decided at the state level.

I respect your position Wally, even though I don't support fully legalized abortion.

The problem I have with the issue is that it was not decided through the democratic process, but through judicial usurpation of the privileges and rights of the other government branches.  This is a dangerous thing for our form of government, whether you agree with abortion or not.  I commend you for recognizing this.

I have the same feeling about gay marriage.  I have no problem with the civil union law in Connecticut, because it was passed by the legislature, and signed by the governor.  Had it been imposed by the courts, I'd have a big problem with it.

So though I don't believe in abortion, I'll go along with whatever the majority really wants, but I have a problem going along with what radical feminists have illegitimately rammed through the courts.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

yes, but only because it would help the Democrats politically.

[minionofmidas]

Define overturned.

[A18]

Define overturned.

Define define.

[minionofmidas]

Define overturned.

Define define.

"Overturn Roe vs Wade" and "Preserve Roe vs Wade" seem to be set phrases in US politics by which persons signal that a) they are against resp. for legal abortion and that b) they have no clue about the issue.
Seeing as that its content was overturned in Doe vs whatever (I keep forgetting) just one year later, and its reasoning in Casey vs Planned Parenthood in the 80s...

[A18]

We're talking about whether you think the Supreme Court should ignore the Constitution when making decisions.

[Emsworth]

Roe v. Wade should definitely be reversed. The decision is based on an utterly absurd interpretation of the Constitution. Abortion is, as far as the Constitution is concerned, an issue for each state to resolve in whatever manner it sees fit.

However, I will not be unhappy if Roe is preserved. I am much more concerned about the Supreme Court's decisions relating to the extent of congressional power, than about its decisions relating to social policy.

[Keystone Phil]

Yes (D)

In states like Pennsylvania, a clear majority say of 20 points, is pro-choice.

Where did you get that figure?  Just curious.

Most recent SUSA poll done on choice.

Yeah and I guess you believe the numbers showing states like North and South Dakota are in favor of legalized abortion, too?

[TeePee4Prez]

Yes (D)

In states like Pennsylvania, a clear majority say of 20 points, is pro-choice.

Where did you get that figure?  Just curious.

Most recent SUSA poll done on choice.

Yeah and I guess you believe the numbers showing states like North and South Dakota are in favor of legalized abortion, too?

Utah and Louisiana don't favor it according to the poll.  Come on, PA shows 20 POINTS in favor of even on a poll like that says something and it was higher than the national average.  You fail yet again to address my point about underepresentation and gerrymandering, but I know you're a partisan hack and jackass so you will continue to act like a 5 year old and say Rick Santorum represents your common Pennsylvanian.

[TheresNoMoney]

Pro-lifers are the minority in this country. Their numbers are often overestimated because they are extremely vocal about their opposition to legal abortion.