• 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!

Roe vs Wade can be reversed?

tosca1 said:
I was under the impression from pro-choice that Roe vs Wade is a done deal.....but apparently there's only one vote that's
stopping it from being reversed.



https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-retires-supreme-court-the-fight-is-coming


There's a big chance that Roe vs Wade can be reversed. That depends on who's going to replace Kennedy.


Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are said to be the leading candidates for Supreme Court seat.

Kavanaugh is rumoured to be the favorite. Both of these candidates are quite young.
Click to expand...

LMAO thats not how it works at all. Its staggeringly more complicated than that. With the years and precedence alone it seem severely unlikely it gets reversed.

Not to mention any additional hopes and dreams about abortion being banned are fantasy IMO. Like i state in all these threads, America is a first world country. We have rights and laws and freedoms here. Its very unlikely we would ever reverse progress on an issue like this and treat women as lessers. Banning abortion is what 3rd world countries do, countries with out rights and freedoms, countries with dictators. Its very unlikely we would ever do that, i have much more faith in america.

Now with that said i have no doubts people will "try" they just wont be successful, the best i see happening for them is getting RvW dropped from weeks to 20 weeks and still having many exceptions.
 
I also suspect a new SCOTUS will not overtly overturn Roe. The SCOTUS reaffirmed it just 2 years ago (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html) Support for legal abortion is also much higher than opposition; it's been a fairly consistent 55% pro, 40% against, for years.

More likely is that they will allow states to apply stronger restrictions.

We should also keep in mind a few things. One is that medications like misoprostol and mifepristone are highly effective (95%) and are available on the black markets. Misoprostol is even available over the counter in Mexico. Making abortion illegal will reduce rates somewhat, but it won't be nearly as discouraging as it was in the 1960s.
 
Maybe, but the Supreme Court isn't supposed to work like Congress. You don't just get more conservatives and change all the decisions; then get more liberals and changes all the decisions. The Roberts Court is really a joke - very partisan, but I'm not sure the conservatives would go that far. Even they must have some integrity.
 
Stare decisive no longer exists in America. Now it is pure partisanship.
 
jkennedy said:
Stare decisive no longer exists in America. Now it is pure partisanship.
Click to expand...
Stare decisis has never been absolute, and the SCOTUS has never been hermetically sealed from everyday politics.

That said, it is still rare that existing precedent is blatantly reversed. Even if Republicans picked 3 or 4 justices, it's unlikely that Roe would be completely vacated. Again, the more likely outcome is that state laws will get more restrictive, even as black market networks for drugs like misoprostol will allow those laws to be violated easily.
 
calamity said:
If the GOP reverse R v W, they'll lose the women vote for generations to come. I'm curious to see if they pull that trigger.
Click to expand...
Well...

You ve been right about everything else. Hows madamn president Hillary doing these days? How d that deplorables thingy work out? Started any new wars, has she?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Well...

You ve been right about everything else. Hows madamn president Hillary doing these days? How d that deplorables thingy work out? Started any new wars, has she?
Click to expand...

Stare decisis
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Really?

Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board inform you of any cracks that could appear in that argument? Hell, R v W itself destroys that argument.
Click to expand...

You can hope. You can dream. But abortion is not going away.. name the country that had it and stopped it
 
vegas giants said:
You can hope. You can dream. But abortion is not going away.. name the country that had it and stopped it
Click to expand...

That was the same sentiment about the prospects of abolition... right up until we began abolishing slavery worldwide. When you are right you eventually MUST win.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
That was the same sentiment about the prospects of abolition... right up until we began abolishing slavery worldwide. When you are right you eventually MUST win.
Click to expand...

Except slavery had been outlawed in many places before we did. Abortion was just legalized in ireland.
 
tosca1 said:
I was under the impression from pro-choice that Roe vs Wade is a done deal.....but apparently there's only one vote that's
stopping it from being reversed.



https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-retires-supreme-court-the-fight-is-coming


There's a big chance that Roe vs Wade can be reversed. That depends on who's going to replace Kennedy.


Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are said to be the leading candidates for Supreme Court seat.

Kavanaugh is rumoured to be the favorite. Both of these candidates are quite young.
Click to expand...

Theoretically it can be reversed, I would say that it's not likely, however.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Really?

Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board inform you of any cracks that could appear in that argument? Hell, R v W itself destroys that argument.
Click to expand...

Roe was reaffirmed in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey decision and again in the WholeWomans Health 5 to 3 decision in 2016.

From:
Conclusion

In applying the substantial burden test, courts must weigh the extent to which the laws in question actually serve the stated government interest against the burden they impose. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion for the 5-3 majority, which held that the provisions of H.B. 2 at issue do not confer medical benefits that are sufficient to justify the burdens they impose on women seeking to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion. Therefore, the provisions unconstitutionally impose an undue burden. The Court held that the judicial review of such statutes need not be wholly deferential to the legislative fact-finding, especially when the factual record before the district court contradicted it. In this case, the evidence presented before the district court showed that the admitting privileges requirement of H.B. 2 did not advance the state’s interest in protecting women’s health but did place a substantial burden in the path of a woman seeking an abortion by forcing about half of the state’s abortion clinics to close. This additional layer of regulation provided no further protections than those already in place. Similarly, the requirement that abortion clinics meet the standards for ambulatory surgical centers did not appreciably lower the risks of abortions compared to those performed in non-surgical centers. These requirements were so tangentially related to the actual procedures involved in an abortion that they were essentially arbitrary. If these requirements took effect, only seven or eight facilities in the entire state would be able to function, which is in and of itself a substantial burden on women seeking abortions because those remaining facilities would not be able to meet the demand. The Court also held that the petitioners were not precluded from challenging the provisions as they were applied despite previous litigation on whether the provisions were unconstitutional on their face, especially given the evidence about how their enforcement had actually affected abortion access across the state.
Click to expand...

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-274
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
They didn't lose all the black vote and they aren't losing all the Latino vote either; but they are going to lose enough of them to be relegated to the hinterlands in those demographics. Give it time.

If they lose over 70% of the women vote, they will be toast in the overall population. And, if they reverse R v W, it's going to happen sooner than anyone expected.


The anti-abortion fight was theater. No one on that side with even an ounce of political savvy really wants to ban it. They know the consequences.
Click to expand...



That actually makes sense. :yt
 
iguanaman said:
You and all the back alley butchers..... Most abortions take place in countries where it is banned.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476
Click to expand...


Meh. The typical liberal "guilt-inducing" butchers in alleys/ rusting coat hangers, doesn't wring anything anymore.
They could've prevented it. They made their choice to risk getting pregnant. AND, getting STD! :shrug:


If unwanted pregnancy doesn't faze them - getting STD should.
 
vegas giants said:
It wont be overturned.

Stare decisis
Click to expand...

Stare decisis could hurt the defense of Roe.


State decisis" is usually a wise policy. But, where the Constitution is involved, the Supreme Court often overrules previous decisions.
It is hard to amend the Constitution to correct a mistaken decision. "Roe" cannot be corrected by legislation. Public opinion polls show majority support for abortion restrictions.

"Roe" is hard to apply consistently. "Roe" is "the judicial equivalent of a runaway freight train."
19 state legislatures have passed petitions to convene a Constitutional convention to propose a human life amendment to the constitution.

The Supreme Court has a history of overturning decisions in the areas of individual rights, due process, and federalism.
"Roe" should be reversed. It was "out of step with the legal system and public opinion" in 1973 and is still so today.

If the Court does not reject "Roe," the controversy will continue. The Court is "ill-positioned" to resolve the abortion debate. Until the Court overturns "Roe," the other branches of government cannot act.
Click to expand...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2603863



“Those who argue that stare decisis compels blind adherence to all prior precedents distort the doctrine,” Robert L. McFarland, an associate professor and associate dean at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, wrote last year when Neil Gorsuch was being grilled on the subject by a U.S. Senate that had held the Supreme Court seat open for him.

Today’s Supreme Court decision declaring that people who benefit from union bargaining shouldn’t have to pay for it required a belief that the court is not bound to stand by that which is already decided.

The decision today hinged on the court declaring that its previous decision on the question was a poor one.
Click to expand...
https://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2018/06/precedent-wont-impede-overturning-roe-v-wade/


Look at the ruling on public unions, as an example.


In a blow to public sector unions, Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old precedent
Click to expand...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/supreme-court-rules-in-janus-labor-union-case.html


You can overturn a precedent if there is a good reason. They'll have that good reason.
 
Last edited:
vegas giants said:
You can hope. You can dream. But abortion is not going away.. name the country that had it and stopped it
Click to expand...

You can hope. You can dream. Abortion isn't going away - women have been doing that in back alleys and throughout history.

Legalized abortion in the USA will go away.
 
vegas giants said:
Except slavery had been outlawed in many places before we did. Abortion was just legalized in ireland.
Click to expand...

Lol. So....USA follows Ireland? :lol:

All those countries will eventually revert back - wait and see!
 
Ikari said:
Theoretically it can be reversed, I would say that it's not likely, however.
Click to expand...

That's wistful thinking, though.
Because as I see how things are being overturned lately.....I think it's more likely to happen.
 
tosca1 said:
That's wistful thinking, though.
Because as I see how things are being overturned lately.....I think it's more likely to happen.
Click to expand...

No, not going to happen. No justice wants to step in front of that blowtorch.
 
minnie616 said:
Roe was reaffirmed in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey decision and again in the WholeWomans Health 5 to 3 decision in 2016.

From:


https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-274
Click to expand...

Yeah, so?

Remember that elections have consequences and we won. All that is required is that legislatures define the truth of personhood, it begins at conception...then our constitution protects what it should, the constitutional burden rightly shifts.
 
LowDown said:
No, not going to happen. No justice wants to step in front of that blowtorch.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

If we have strong Constitutional Justices that should not matter, should not be a factor in the conduct of true justice. Especially if the law is drafted, passed defining personhood beginning at conception.

The very reason for the independence of the judiciary was so they could make unaffected, lady justice blindfolded styled rulings. If they are to be cowed by media, mass, mainstream and social, then maybe we need rethink our judiciary so as to cure this form of illness that can, does affect all aspects of our modern life.

Too too important not to be striving for real justice.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yeah, so?

Remember that elections have consequences and we won. All that is required is that legislatures define the truth of personhood, it begins at conception...then our constitution protects what it should, the constitutional burden rightly shifts.
Click to expand...

I disagree as does Roe, but changing the definition of personhood will not overturn Roe since Roe is based on Right to privacy.

If you wish to define personhood as beginning at conception an admendent to the US Constitution would need to be added.

A few states have to pass personhood amendments but they have failed. Even the very conservative state of Mississippi could not pass a personhood admentment to their state Consitution.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
If you wish to define personhood as beginning at conception an admendent to the US Constition would need to added.

A few states have to pass personhood amendments but they have failed. Even the very conservative state of Mississippi could not pass a personhood admentment to their state Consitution.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Where in the constitution does it say anything about requiring an amendment to define personhood? Hint: It doesn t. R v W didnt require any amendments to be passed to condone atrocity; shouldnt, wont need one to stop the atrocities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom