• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When will Abortion be Banned and Which State goes First?

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
So, with the crazies in charge, how long before the first state bans the procedure and makes it a criminal offense to perform abortions?

My money is on Indiana, and I say it happens by Summer.
 
calamity said:
So, with the crazies in charge, how long before the first state bans the procedure and makes it a criminal offense to perform abortions?

My money is on Indiana, and I say it happens by Summer.
Click to expand...
Did you cheat? :mrgreen:

Yeah, a legislator from Indiana just sponsored a bill to criminalize abortion. It was a day or two ago.
 
calamity said:
So, with the crazies in charge, how long before the first state bans the procedure and makes it a criminal offense to perform abortions?

My money is on Indiana, and I say it happens by Summer.
Click to expand...

The better question is (and assuming can Trump appoint quick enough to fill the vacant seat) will the Supreme Court lean far enough right to nullify by new ruling the prior rulings and precedence set by Roe v. Wade? The reason for the play on question asked is no matter how quickly that key States criminalize abortion the challenge with the arguably 4-4 split allows prior decision to still hold.

Indiana, or any other State, can get as restrictive as they want to and it subjects that effort to challenge. The only way around this is the disposition of the Supreme Court.
 
Given it will take a change from the SCOTUS, don't you think you're jumping the gun?
 
Chomsky said:
Did you cheat? :mrgreen:

Yeah, a legislator from Indiana just sponsored a bill to criminalize abortion. It was a day or two ago.
Click to expand...

Yeah...if you call seeing it over the weekend cheating. :)
 
Abortion will never be banned. Stop the hysteria.
 
WCH said:
Given it will take a change from the SCOTUS, don't you think you're jumping the gun?
Click to expand...

I have zero doubt SCOUTUS will overturn R v W 5-4. This will primarily occur when some state, like Indiana, passes a strict abortion law.
 
Josie said:
Abortion will never be banned. Stop the hysteria.
Click to expand...

It will not be banned everywhere. But do you want to bet that it will be banned in at least 10 states by 2020?
 
OrphanSlug said:
The better question is (and assuming can Trump appoint quick enough to fill the vacant seat) will the Supreme Court lean far enough right to nullify by new ruling the prior rulings and precedence set by Roe v. Wade? The reason for the play on question asked is no matter how quickly that key States criminalize abortion the challenge with the arguably 4-4 split allows prior decision to still hold.

Indiana, or any other State, can get as restrictive as they want to and it subjects that effort to challenge. The only way around this is the disposition of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. IMO, this is exactly what I expect to happen. Some crazy law gets passed in a red state and SCOTUS rules 5-4 in favor of it, overturning the precedent set by Roe V Wade.

I'd bet the farm on this one.
 
calamity said:
It will not be banned everywhere. But do you want to bet that it will be banned in at least 10 states by 2020?
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll take that bet. What do I win when you lose?
 
calamity said:
Absolutely. IMO, this is exactly what I expect to happen. Some crazy law gets passed in a red state and SCOTUS rules 5-4 in favor of it, overturning the precedent set by Roe V Wade.

I'd bet the farm on this one.
Click to expand...

You question the social leaning of the nation given that Trump won and gets to work for at least 2 years with a Republican 115th Congress. Another fun question is what all to Republicans take their power and use it on? The assumption for the abortion debate holds that the vacant seat is filled with a real Social Conservative appointment, and all the challenges to several State initiatives like Indiana pass by the Supreme Court with new ruling rendering Roe v. Wade as nullified.

That is real structured timing to pull off, but the consequence is pitting Republicans taking their power for a spin against general population sentiment on this issue...

gallup-abortion-2016-a.jpg

To outlaw abortion with something as restrictive as Social Conservatism wants means risking Independent backlash all during Trump's first 2 years, and puts the 116th Congress disposition in risk.

I doubt all this will work out as Republicans want, and I am not entirely convinced that the other already seated arguably 4 conservative leaning Supreme Court judges will go along with Trump's appointment (and assuming that appointment is being placed because of this reason.)
 
OrphanSlug said:
You question the social leaning of the nation given that Trump won and gets to work for at least 2 years with a Republican 115th Congress. Another fun question is what all to Republicans take their power and use it on? The assumption for the abortion debate holds that the vacant seat is filled with a real Social Conservative appointment, and all the challenges to several State initiatives like Indiana pass by the Supreme Court with new ruling rendering Roe v. Wade as nullified.

That is real structured timing to pull off, but the consequence is pitting Republicans taking their power for a spin against general population sentiment on this issue...

View attachment 67210219

To outlaw abortion with something as restrictive as Social Conservatism wants means risking Independent backlash all during Trump's first 2 years, and puts the 116th Congress disposition in risk.

I doubt all this will work out as Republicans want, and I am not entirely convinced that the other already seated arguably 4 conservative leaning Supreme Court judges will go along with Trump's appointment (and assuming that appointment is being placed because of this reason.)
Click to expand...

Trump stated in the third debate that he will appoint pro-life justices. And, he is going to get more than one pick. Ginsberg is not going to last 4 more years.
 
calamity said:
Me admitting I was wrong :)
Click to expand...

I'd say, I'll run around the block naked and post it...But, I'll be almost 60 by then. So, not a pretty thought.
 
calamity said:
Trump stated in the third debate that he will appoint pro-life justices. And, he is going to get more than one pick. Ginsberg is not going to last 4 more years.
Click to expand...

Ja, but the 115th Congress has a 2 year shelf life. The stress then is holding the 116th Congress as well to ensure being able to seat more than one appointment.

(Then again, Congress usually enjoys a 90%+ retention rate so it is possible no matter what the 115th Congress does that most will be around for the 116th.)
 
OrphanSlug said:
Ja, but the 115th Congress has a 2 year shelf life. The stress then is holding the 116th Congress as well to ensure being able to seat more than one appointment.

(Then again, Congress usually enjoys a 90%+ retention rate so it is possible no matter what the 115th Congress does that most will be around for the 116th.)
Click to expand...

The whole country is red. I think it's 90% now, when we add up all the state houses, governorships, congress, exec branch and now SCOTUS. Roe is doomed.
 
OrphanSlug said:
The better question is (and assuming can Trump appoint quick enough to fill the vacant seat) will the Supreme Court lean far enough right to nullify by new ruling the prior rulings and precedence set by Roe v. Wade? The reason for the play on question asked is no matter how quickly that key States criminalize abortion the challenge with the arguably 4-4 split allows prior decision to still hold.

Indiana, or any other State, can get as restrictive as they want to and it subjects that effort to challenge. The only way around this is the disposition of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Maybe not. Lower courts can issue injunctions which in the absence of a majority on SCOTUS can be left to stand.
 
calamity said:
So, with the crazies in charge, how long before the first state bans the procedure and makes it a criminal offense to perform abortions?

My money is on Indiana, and I say it happens by Summer.
Click to expand...

who cares
 
calamity said:
So, with the crazies in charge, how long before the first state bans the procedure and makes it a criminal offense to perform abortions?

My money is on Indiana, and I say it happens by Summer.
Click to expand...

Don't think it will happen that fast. I don't even think there are any cases currently in the pipe line for the Supreme court to even decide to hear at this point unless someone knows of any.
 
calamity said:
Trump stated in the third debate that he will appoint pro-life justices. And, he is going to get more than one pick. Ginsberg is not going to last 4 more years.
Click to expand...


Well she doesn't have to last 4 years, only 3.


Remember a President in their 4th year shouldn't make a nomination nor should the Senate hold hearings and take a vote because the people should speak via the upcoming Presidential election.


Right?



>>>>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom