Roe vs Wade can be reversed?

[Scrabaholic]

Unfortunately.. I lost and the kid ended up in the state facility.

that poor child.

 

[year2late]

I understand. My first pregnancy damaged my kidneys too. I became so anemic from complications from the pregnancy my GYN set up the delivery room ready for a full blood transfusion and put me under a general before delivery. When they wheeled me into the delivery room I did not know if I would live to see the baby.

We chose to continue our difficult pregnancies , but because we are pro choice ( realizing medical decisions should be left up the woman and her doctor ) Gaugingcatenate has no respect for the medical sacrifices we went through giving birth.

The problem is that they see us as Tupperware wombs and do not care that even the healthiest of women with the best insurance and doctors can have life threatening (or deadly) complications. Frankly, if I was poor and relegated to county clinics or Medicaid MDs, they probably would have missed the subtle signs of impending doom. Most women who chose abortions do not have access to the best MDs and great insurance.

 

[year2late]

That may well be so... but those containers are not in possession of the capacity premeditating the harm...so are far less culpable.

A fetus is neither innocent or guilty.

 

[Lursa]

Yep it can be pretty bad. I once had a patient that had been born premature, addicted to heroin, HIV positive (luckily it was just the mothers antibiodies) and fetal alcohol syndrome. .. we followed him for years in foster care where he did wonderfully (his foster parents were awesome.. but he had needs.. he had a PEG tube, and other developmental disabilities but very high functioning.).

The foster parents basically raised him as a baby until he was 6. They wanted to adopt but mother hadn;t given up parental rights. When she got out of prison. she wanted him and so he went to her. 5 months later, he was found locked in the bathroom of an abandomed apartment, Burns, no food, luckily he was smart enough to drink out of the toilet (water had been turned off) to survive.

Now.. he was back in our hospital system and I was called in to give my advice on his discharge plan. The mother had given up her parental rights in a plea deal. So I said , why not let the foster parents (the ones that raised him and wanted to adopt him) adopt him.

The social worker said they were not appropriate to adopt because they were not able to meet his "cultural needs". It was because the child was black and the foster parents white.

Well, I had some things to say about that.. considering that this was the only parents that this kid had every known.. and it seemed more important to do right by this poor abused child, than use him as some political pawn.

Unfortunately.. I lost and the kid ended up in the state facility.

Ah, so sorry. I remember one almost the same...Kathy. Born addicted to heroin. Smart, sweet, funny. Once she got to be about 4 yrs old, her mother started getting her back. Then she'd lose custody or get arrested again and Kathy would come back to the same foster home. Until one day, she went 'home' to her mother and ended up dead.

 

[Lursa]

A fetus is neither innocent or guilty.

He values 'nothingness'. It's an excuse, an appeal to emotion. Even he doesnt believe that. But he does believe that people believe it matters and sounds noble when he uses it as his excuse.

There will always be those that believe in quantity rather than quality of life.

Reducing them to numbers like that is dehumanizing.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

A fetus is neither innocent or guilty.

WRONG.

An unborn child is completely innocent. The absence of guilt is innocence. Duh.

 

[LaylaWindu]

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.

It's just a bunch a hoopla. I'm prolife and I understand the reality RvW isn't going anywhere. I hope changes are made to it to go to a more European style and that along with the spreading of accurate information and options are what my prolife groups advocate from. IMO it would actually be a huge mistake to reverse it because I don't think it will last, I think something more concrete would just follow it and then any grey room to move to a higher stander of protection for the unborn will not exist.

 

[year2late]

Yep it can be pretty bad. I once had a patient that had been born premature, addicted to heroin, HIV positive (luckily it was just the mothers antibiodies) and fetal alcohol syndrome. .. we followed him for years in foster care where he did wonderfully (his foster parents were awesome.. but he had needs.. he had a PEG tube, and other developmental disabilities but very high functioning.).

The foster parents basically raised him as a baby until he was 6. They wanted to adopt but mother hadn;t given up parental rights. When she got out of prison. she wanted him and so he went to her. 5 months later, he was found locked in the bathroom of an abandomed apartment, Burns, no food, luckily he was smart enough to drink out of the toilet (water had been turned off) to survive.

Now.. he was back in our hospital system and I was called in to give my advice on his discharge plan. The mother had given up her parental rights in a plea deal. So I said , why not let the foster parents (the ones that raised him and wanted to adopt him) adopt him.

The social worker said they were not appropriate to adopt because they were not able to meet his "cultural needs". It was because the child was black and the foster parents white.

Well, I had some things to say about that.. considering that this was the only parents that this kid had every known.. and it seemed more important to do right by this poor abused child, than use him as some political pawn.

Unfortunately.. I lost and the kid ended up in the state facility.

I cannot even fathom being a child raised in one home for 6 years and being taken away. 6 years of a loving nurturing environment. That alone would screw with the kid's head. Sounds like step one in how to create a sociopath.That alone is a recipe for disaster. Taking a kid out of a physically and emotionally abusive house after 6 years is one thing...but removing him from a loving nurturing environment? Ewwww, if bio-mom actually had the child's best interest at heart, she would have allowed the child to stay put and maybe asked when the child was old enough to understand to have contact.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Took me a couple of days to catch up and read this entire thread. I'd like to point out a few things. Discussing the horror stories of unwanted and abused children really doesn't effect the arguments which will convince the court one way or another about abortion and sustaining or overturning Roe vs Wade. Everyone in this life suffers their own personal horror stories. Not that these stories should not be discussed, but the OP is questioning whether or not Roe vs. Wade can be overturned. The court arguments, should the case be reheard by Scotus, will not address the plight of unwanted children, especially since Roe vs Wade was not judged on the basis of approval or disapproval of abortion, but rather the privacy rights of a woman to choose abortion, or more distinctly, a woman's right to decide about her own body and medical choices.

Roe vs Wade established new case law, in essence limiting governmental interference for a woman's choices about how to treat her own body, her medical decisions. A decision about rights and privacy to enact those rights without interference by government. Tho generally accepted as law of the land, case law, like legislative law is always vulnerable to change. New cases can achieve new interpretations of constitutional limitations, just as new legislation can create new laws superseding prior legislated laws. Therefore, Roe vs Wade can be overturned by Scotus with a new interpretation based on a new case, heard by different sitting judges or the same, and for different reasons than the first go around.

Since Scotus is obligated to pass judgment based on arguments for constitutional frameworks underlying law, regardless of political or emotional issues, we can expect the rights of privacy for a woman's medical decisions to be the primary address of Scotus, not abortion. And this is a far more reaching issue than our so called law pundits, favoring or not the right to choose, have pointed out in their arguments made public to today. Any new case law could easily undermine faith in Scotus by reducing the reliance in other court cases of laws by precedence used regularly by our court system as established law. What would this do to the Miranda decision, among many others? The general effect on the case law established laws of the land could be monumental. Yet, if temperament of the nation, a massive change in the legal environment, demand an alternative response from the court on any prior case law, such an alternative could be acceptable to the nation, and non disruptive if based on questions of constitutional interpretation.

More succinctly, Roe vs Wade, tho overshadowed by the issues of abortion, a woman's right to choose, has been far more reaching and influential to other aspects of our lives than have been openly discussed. Prior to Roe vs Wade, it was not uncommon for men to rid themselves of a "nuisance" wife by having her committed to an asylum for psychiatric care with the assistance of a sympathetic psychiatrist using whatever justifications, with no participation in the decision making by the woman, the patient. Roe vs Wade essentially ended that immoral practice, and in doing so, altered the entire medical environment by establishing within the environment, grounds for all patients' rights. With greater effect than only abortion rights, this effects each and every one of us, more so with today's eyes on the future of medical care in this nation being very questionable. And the same holds true for all arguments about privacy rights, such as the recent decision by the FCC to alter net neutrality rulings. Look and you can find many other ramifications from Roe vs Wade.

continued

 

[OldFatGuy]

Tho I personally object to abortion, with exception for threat to the mother's life, bringing to term a child facing a short painful life because of malformation, and the results of rape, I recognize the decision to terminate a pregnancy is not mine to make for someone else, not even for my wife. And I understand, no method of birth control is 100% effective. An existing family, could decide to terminate an unexpected pregnancy, after the failure of birth control, may not be willing to add a new burden that could be destructive for the existing family, and terminate that unexpected pregnancy. I will not be the one to judge whether or not such a decision is more or less immoral for others. Not only am I not familiar with their circumstances, the decision is not for me to judge.

I had a vasectomy after my third child was born. My wife was prescribed the birth control pill for other reasons than preventing pregnancy, yet she was pregnant with out fourth. Upon examination, my vasectomy had reversed itself, and the pill did not stop her from getting pregnant. Fortunately, we welcomed our fourth child and we did not confront the issue of abortion. After he was born, I had another vasectomy and my wife had a tubal ligation, another pregnancy could have endangered her life. Each of us is unique, as individuals and with our circumstances. One rule, one law, one solution is not suitable for everyone.

I firmly believe, overturning Roe vs Wade would be a disastrous mistake for our nation. Abortion is a relatively small portion of the equation underlying the Roe vs Wade decision. Without a doubt, Scotus must restrict itself to constitutional arguments, and not bow down to a loud opposition group disfavoring abortion rights. And as well it must examine and consider the long term effects of overturning Roe vs Wade would have upon our entire system of law, the value of our courts, and the effects on every other aspect of American life where the negative ramifications could greatly alter modern law philosophy in this nation.

 

[cpwill]

Tho I personally object to abortion, with exception for threat to the mother's life, bringing to term a child facing a short painful life because of malformation, and the results of rape

Why do you hold this personal position?

 

[OldFatGuy]

Why do you hold this personal position?

Even tho the history of humanity is filled with examples of humans slaughtering humans, holding life cheap, I choose to accept each human life as precious, and children, each a gift. Not complex, and not simple.

 

[cpwill]

Even tho the history of humanity is filled with examples of humans slaughtering humans, holding life cheap, I choose to accept each human life as precious, and children, each a gift. Not complex, and not simple.

So you are personally opposed to abortion except in those extremely limited cases because you see an unborn child as a human life, a precious child, and a gift?

 

[OldFatGuy]

So you are personally opposed to abortion except in those extremely limited cases because you see an unborn child as a human life, a precious child, and a gift?

Comprehension is your friend. Does my choice to believe as I do, bother you? Tho I make two alterations to your interpretation, I see a fetus, an unborn child as a potential child, and then I see that child if brought to term, a gift. Additionally, I do understand that tho that child may be a gift, come later in life, it could become a horror. However we are not here to discuss the future of that child I see as a gift.

It is interesting that you single out my preference for life, rather than the gestalt of my post, expressing the reasons why the decisions by others are not within my purview. Nor that I've express far greater issues for not overturning Roe vs Wade. My Magic 8 Ball predicts the emergence of emotional intolerance boiling under your skin and about to erupt.

 

[Howard the Duck]

do you know of any case before the court right now, which seeks to reverse the 70's USSC decision?

the court would not going to seek eliminate the right of privacy, but more then likely refer abortions to be a choice of the states, in other words return to state powers.

under original constitutional law, the congress has no authority to pass laws on the people, only state governments do.

Nonsense. You need to reread article 1!

 

[cpwill]

Comprehension is your friend. Does my choice to believe as I do, bother you? Tho I make two alterations to your interpretation, I see a fetus, an unborn child as a potential child, and then I see that child if brought to term, a gift. Additionally, I do understand that tho that child may be a gift, come later in life, it could become a horror. However we are not here to discuss the future of that child I see as a gift.

So it it a human child, or not. You seem to waver.

It is interesting that you single out my preference for life, rather than the gestalt of my post, expressing the reasons why the decisions by others are not within my purview. Nor that I've express far greater issues for not overturning Roe vs Wade. My Magic 8 Ball predicts the emergence of emotional intolerance boiling under your skin and about to erupt.

Not really. I think your position not terribly well thought through, which is why I am focusing on the center issue. If it is a human child, then there is no justification for killing it outside of absolute incidents of life-of-the-mother. If it is not a human child, then there is no particular value associated with it, and no reason to be against abortion, personally, or otherwise.

 

[OldFatGuy]

So it it a human child, or not. You seem to waver.

Actually, I'm thinking of aliens from Planet 9.

Not really. I think your position not terribly well thought through, which is why I am focusing on the center issue. If it is a human child, then there is no justification for killing it outside of absolute incidents of life-of-the-mother. If it is not a human child, then there is no particular value associated with it, and no reason to be against abortion, personally, or otherwise.

Cut the BS!

Dead babies make good eating.

 

[Master PO]

Nonsense. You need to reread article 1!

the USSC is not going to say" we were wrong there is not a right to privacy", the right will stand, any case concerning R v W the USSC would more then likely refer back to the states.

in original constitutional law there are no powers delegated to the federal government over the people...none!, James Madison the father of the constitution makes it clear in federalist 45, when he states "the powers reserved to the states are powers concerning the lives liberty and property of the people", the USSC reaffirms this in the 1873 slaughterhouse case

 

[minnie616]

Roe ( the Constitutional right to an abortion ) has been reaffirmed in past. Here are a couple of the more recent.ones

In 1992 Casey v Planned Parenthood reaffirmed the Constitutional right for the woman to have an abortion.

With the constitutional right to an abortion reaffirmed, the Court next reiterated Roe's ruling that, first, states could not ban abortions before the "viability" point (the point at which the fetus is able to sustain life outside the womb), and second, that
in no case may states ban abortions that help preserve the life or health of the mother.

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_casey.html

And in 2016 Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
The Constitutional right of to an abortion without undue burden was once again reaffirmed.

 

[jaeger19]

that poor child.

Yeah. It was a terrible thing.

 

[Lursa]

I think your position not terribly well thought through, which is why I am focusing on the center issue. If it is a human child, then there is no justification for killing it outside of absolute incidents of life-of-the-mother. If it is not a human child, then there is no particular value associated with it, and no reason to be against abortion, personally, or otherwise.

We value many things, not just human life.

It's how and how much we value it. Our country and our Constitution are based on equality for its citizens.

We (many/ most?) people value the unborn, esp. those they are biologically or socially connected to. Others at a more philosophical level.

For instance, I value the unborn...all unborn...but I value all born people more.

The unborn however, are not equal to the born. I've offered one good reason...there are others.

The unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

They do not have a single right that they can exercise independently.

Is there a reason that you think (if you do) that the unborn should be valued more than born people? Because legally (and IMO ethically) they cannot be treated equally. If so, why should the unborn have rights that would supersede women's?

Just another truth to consider:
If you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.

 

[jaeger19]

Play judge, jury and executioner and take your chances then, brother.

.

Luckily, the US understands that its not that simple.

I am not here to ease your pain... not when it comes to such apathy about the voiceless.

Well.. theres the irony. The person that's apathetic about the voiceless is you. YOU are the one that thinks that you know what's best for the voiceless. YOU have no problem with children being born into suffering.. simply to satisfy your warped morals.

YOU would take away the parents rights to decide what is best and hand them over to a government official.

Even though you would willingly steal that right from others.

Actually I don't steal that right. I protect that right... you are the one that wants to steal that right and turn it over to the government (as long as it does what you want).

I understand that there is a choice that needs to be made by the parents in consultation with their physician. You would take away that right to choose. the parents are in the best position to know whats best for them and their child.. not you.

So, I dont care about the mothers life because I care for the babies life?

When you do so at the exclusion of the mothers life? Yes. And you have made it clear that what you think would be acceptable to do an abortion to save the mothers life is only if the physician could "prove" (your words), that the mother was 99% certain to die.

and since its impossible to prove the future.. Your position would put women at risk for death and deny them medical care.

I am not forcing anything on anybody. Make your damn choices

Absolutely you are. When the consequences is that if you cannot PROVE the future.. you go to jail for murder or accessory to murder... you are forcing people.

Exactly, we can all of us look back and see I never made that statement

yes.. we can look back and see your words and the context in which you stated them. Don't get mad because I have shown the truth of your position.

 

[Lursa]

Well.. theres the irony. The person that's apathetic about the voiceless is you. YOU are the one that thinks that you know what's best for the voiceless. YOU have no problem with children being born into suffering.. simply to satisfy your warped morals.

Exactly. It changes the 'voiceless' from the unborn to women if they are forced to remain pregnant against their wills.

It's a blindness usually born of resentment and disrespect for women.

 

[jaeger19]

Ah, so sorry. I remember one almost the same...Kathy. Born addicted to heroin. Smart, sweet, funny. Once she got to be about 4 yrs old, her mother started getting her back. Then she'd lose custody or get arrested again and Kathy would come back to the same foster home. Until one day, she went 'home' to her mother and ended up dead.

Yep.. dealing with that was one of the most stressful things I have ever done. It was one of the things that helped me decide it was time to leave philly.

 

[jaeger19]

Exactly. It changes the 'voiceless' from the unborn to women if they are forced to remain pregnant against their wills.

It's a blindness usually born of resentment and disrespect for women.

Well and also the unborn. We recognize in society that generally the people that best understand whats best for relatives that are voiceless.. are family. That's why a spouse has more authority make life and death decisions when their husband or wife is on lifesupport. We understand that they have a lot more knowledge of whats best than the government.

Well,, anti abortion folks want to make decisions for the unborn. they want to decide whats best for them.. and not their family.