I hope this does not sound insensitive on Roe vs. Wade

[bluestateguy]

I favor a full fight against this USSC nominee, even if it is likley to fail. He clearly is anti-abortion and on the wrong side of too many issues for me.

But not everybody in this country would have their lives disrupted if Roe vs. Wade were overturned. Obviously, if R v. W were overturned most of the red states would ban abortion (except Nevada and maybe Alaska), while no laws would change in the blue states.

Many of the people who post here, not all, are well-off enough and resourceful enough to know where they would need to go to get a safe and legal abortion for themselves or a family member. I suspect most people at DU could probably afford this expense too.

This is why I don't buy this conventional wisdom that says the GOP is doomed if the decision is overturned. Mind you, I don't see it helping the Republican Party, but overturning R v. W won't doom the GOP because many of the pro-choice, business conservatives will not have their lives affected a whole lot if the laws suddenly change.

Let's say Mr. Daddy Republican CEO's little sorority princess gets pregnant after an unfortunate encounter at a fraternity party. The family lives in a red state where abortion is illegal, but Daddy just puts her little princess on a plane to a blue state, or to Canada or the UK, where abortion remains legal. That's not going to change how they vote because they know that they'll always be paying less in taxes with Republicans in power.

As usual, it will be the working class that is unable to get a safe abortion. That is a problem no matter what the status if Roe vs. Wade is. I hope people here appreciate, as some people here do, that the greater burden will be borne by the working class if R vs. W is overturned, more so than priviliged women.

In addition to fighting anti-abortion legislation state by state, pro-choice groups would probably want to start raising money to provide grants to poor women in red states to transport them to blue states where abortion is legal.


edit: additional points

[smirkymonkey]

1. Uh, yeah, it does sound insensitive and just plain stupid.

I'm not even going to bother explaining it to you because you will obviously never get it.

[DerekG]

45. Well, why don't you explain it instead of insulting posters?

Honestly, I've seen people who support this bloody war treated with more respect than those who stray from the abortion consensus around here.

[tk2kewl]

2. hmmm

:popcorn:

[sarahf]

3. hope not

Even if overturned, I think there will be some limits to abortion, but most states will agree to keep abortion legal. Maybe Utah wont. Who else?

[Yupster]

39. Maybe Idaho?

I'd guess two or three states would ban abortion.

Many others would put more restrictions on the right.

[FreedomAngel82]

77. Good luck here in the Bible belt

[knowbody0]

4. insensitive and uninformed IMO

read your words again and imagine the teenagers in foster care. the victims of incest and of rape who are poor. then imagine yourself down and out and prego.

[jrthin]

11. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I was one of those. Still too embarrassed to admit which.

[knowbody0]

15. me too

[insane_cratic_gal]

28. Physically abused as well

I was 18 when I was faced with that choice, hardest choice I had to make. I couldn't bring a child into that life.
People are some how convinced all girls are getting pregnant at Keg parties, or abortion is the new botox party.

An accident, a rape, thrown against a wall with blackend eyes all of the time.. better to end life that hasn't started then place undo stress upon that life being resented because of how it came to be.

[knowbody0]

30. stay strong, woman friend.

[SammyWinstonJack]

83. So was I. nt

[Rainbowreflect]

5. I guess since you do not ever have to worry about being pregnant

it is not that important to you.
Having legal, safe & available reproductive heath services, including abortion is important for every woman. And if you are poor it is even more so.

[southernleftylady]

87. exactly.. great sentiments coming from a man. nt

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

6. Do you really think the Rapturist Right will be satisfied to stop there...

And no, those with money and "connections" to healthcare will not be immune to the ramifications. Policing of adherence to criminalized abortion will be standard practice via database audits of healthcare providers.

[sui generis]

9. exactly - what if as a known "felon" you lose your right to vote?

or have insurance or a mortgage or a job? Or end up on a government sponsored "baby killer" website, with all your personal information available to the criminally freaky.

That really COULD happen.

[SmokingJacket]

7. Minimum of 60% of Americans are in favor of keeping Roe.

And if it were to be overturned, that number would go up, once people start to hear about back alley abortions/deaths again.

No Republican president -- not Reagan, not Bush 1, not even Bush 2 yet -- has done anything to overturn it. It's popular legislation.

If Roberts does vote for overturning, there is still one more vote needed. My bet: that the NEXT judge will be, like Gonzales, prochoice, in order to keep the precious judicial balance.

If abortion went away as an issue... what the hell would they rally their base with??

[sui generis]

8. the fact of the matter is that even if we start castrating gays

it's not going to disrupt most people's lives.

It's not about disruptions to peoples' lives. It's about how far the government can go in deciding what you can and can't do with your body and your life.

It's a reproductive rights issue. What if the government makes it illegal to not be married by the age of 30? It wouldn't disrupt most people's lives. Illegal to masturbate? Wouldn't disrupt most people's lives.

That's not a good test for deciding how far the government can intrude into the affairs of your body, or the bodies of some Americans.

[rzemanfl]

10. Last two sentences of third paragraph are a stretch. n/t

[sui generis]

17. not really -

did anti-sodomy legislation prevent you from doing it other than missionary style with the guy on top and the gal on the bottom?

It inconvenienced nobody except the people against whom it was selectively enforced.

[rzemanfl]

21. Not when you put it that way. n/t

[rzemanfl]

31. Re-read you message, do you mean to say there is ANOTHER

position??????

[converted_democrat]

18. Could not agree with you more....Excellant post!!! n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

58. Sorry, seeing friends of mine forcefuly castrated would disrupt me a LOT.

Although not more than the fuckers who did it after I went through with them.

[sui generis]

89. but I know you have a conscience

there really are people here in our free united states of america who could care less, especially if it was chemical castration or something not too messy.

Anyway, that was hyperbole - but thanks for the "support", so to speak.

The point is that the rationale that "life would go on without disruption" is irrelevant to the Roe v Wade debate - it always goes on more or less without disruption for most people.

p.s. As one of the potential castrati I can assure you they would discover mine are made out of diamond just a moment or two before they lost theirs in a most unfortunate work-related accident. }(

[noiretextatique]

12. what on earth makes you think "most people here could afford..."?

that's a very curious statement...

[Hello_Kitty]

13. Abortion will be illegal in Arizona

State law, still on the books, is that abortion is a crime punishable by jail for the provider AND the woman. Our legislature is majority fundie Repuke. So what do you think the chances are that they will pass any bill legalizing it?

So a lot of so-called "moderate" socially liberal * voters are going to be in for a rude awakening when Roe v. Wade is overturned.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

14. And if the Supreme Court deems the zygote to be a human being, with

all of the rights of a human being, that will supercede all state laws.

[AnnInLa]

16. It's about CHOICE!

You are saying it's no big deal if I don't have control over my own body. You are saying my reproductive rights have to be legislated. You are saying that I am a second-class citizen. What if you had to travel to Nevada or Vermont to have a medical procedure? Don't you see that it's also about the RW wanting CONTROL over womens' bodies? I'll bet that you support gay-marriage, though, don't you? Even there, it's about CHOICE. Gays should have the right to choose marriage or not. Women should have the right to choose bearing a child or not. It is a big deal to me.

[renaissanceguy]

19. If even ONE woman dies

because she had a back-alley abortion, it's a tragedy to ALL women.

Don't think FOR A SECOND that the fundies are stopping at abortion.

Here's what's next on their agenda:

-jailing gays
-kicking out non-Christians
-criminalizing cohabitating heterosexual couples
-mandatory school prayer
-ban science education
-ban sex education
-ban condoms and other birth control
-keep women out of the workplace
-keep poor minorities out of jobs

Don't believe me? Check ANY of their websites.

[Heddi]

20. Wow, Thanks MALE for telling me that my rights aren't a big deal

how about this---

And I hope this doesn't sound insensitive with regards to your medical rights:

But, what rights are YOU willing to give up on? Even if it doesn't affect YOU personally....

You know--this is useless. If you think that outlawing RvW is an acceptable thing because MOST people on DU could probably afford it (and how you came to know what our personal financial situations are is just BEYOND me), I'm afraid I don't have much hope for you. I'm glad you're willing to sell the rights of EVERY WOMAN IN THIS COUNTRY up the fucking river so that it can make YOU feel good.

And the fact that you think it's just peachy fucking keen that 'it will be the working class that is unable to get a safe abortion' says more about you than 10,000 posts ever could.

Tell me your feelings on RvW, abortion, and pregnancy when you have a functioning uterus implanted in you and you have to deal with the reality of unplanned pregnancy EVERY MONTH OF YOUR LIFE from age 12-52. I'm sure your perspective will be a little different than it is now--which is, being a man, who can never get pregnant, never will be pregnant, and has NO idea how important this single law is to the lives and wellbeing of EVERY SINGLE WOMAN in this country.

[Tsiyu]

33. Heddi, I love you

Perhaps, since the Right Wing only agrees to sex between "those who can procreate," the government will soon institute a sperm count check for every male. That's right. Once a month, the government will collect a sample of male reproductive cells to determine who the good "breeders" are.

It will be against the law to have a low sperm count or to masturbate (spilling the Holy Seed!). I'm sure men would be all for it! And, not to sound insensitive, but it wouldn't bother me one little bit.

[bluestateguy]

22. I HAVE EDITED THIS POST TO ADD A FEW ADDITIONAL POINTS

But I apologize for nothing I have already said.

I'm not Dick Durbin.

[fudge stripe cookays]

96. Hmmmm...

But I apologize for nothing I have already said.

And that's what is so sad. Is that you REALLY cannot see how much women are affected by this ruling, and how bad things are going to get for us.

And since when is every woman on DU a fucking millionaire? In this economy, some of the folks on here are almost to the point of living in their cars.

Don't blame us if no one here takes you seriously. Your blitheness and superior male attitude tell us everything we need to know.

FSC

[bluestateguy]

97. Again, I stand by my statements

Don't blame us if no one here takes you seriously. Your blitheness and superior male attitude tell us everything we need to know.

Actually, many people here have defended my argument and suggested that some of the respondents missed my point.

I am a citizen of this country. I pay taxes, I am a man and I am pro-choice. I generally oppose parental consent or notification laws as being bad policy. I have every right to have an opinion on the abortion issue, just as you have the right to have an opinion on the military draft issue (even though current US law does not call for the conscription of women in the event of a draft).

If you want to pick a fight with me, go ahead and do while Roberts' confirmation sails through the Senate 70-30. Go pick your fight with the men who actually are working day and night to make abortion illegal.

[insane_cratic_gal]

23. How long can you guarantee blue states?

You can't, not with private outsourced elections.

People could move from Red to Blue states, you could an influx of red staters invading CT to take it over. CT does have Lieberman after all. Religion and people's personal opinions on abortion need to moved to just that; opinions. You have no say over my body. I have non over yours. Your personal belief doesn't get to decided my personal matters.

No woman should have to cross state lines to seek control over her own body. Would it be ok if I told you, if you want condoms or birth control you have to cross 3 states to get it. Would you be ok with that? Or if you wanted to buy a beer, steak.. gluttony is a sin too.

BushCO made it a crime to harm a fetus in murder cases.
So some poor girl gets knocked up by Uncle Bill because he raped her at 14. She decides to take a baseball bat or throw herself down the stairs (this happened to a teen girl and her boyfriend was in jail for it). Or take harmful medications to off herself, ends her pregnancy herself and nearly her own life. She then gets charged with First degree murder because abortion is a illegal and the life of a fetus is protected over her own.

[ibegurpard]

24. All you people jumping on the OP are missing his point

that overturning Roe v. Wade is not going to doom the GOP. The people that support him aren't going to affected enough to care whether this does or doesn't happen.

[fujiyama]

25. The working class

will likely be screwed in many ways under this new nominee. This justice seems to be on the wrong side of many issues as you said. I'm especially worried about his views on environmental regulation (did someone say he viewed the endangered species act unconsititional, what about clean air and water?), and labor laws (yes that means everything including minimum wage), civil and minority rights (he seems really cold on this), church state seperation (looks like he's another scalia here).

Basically the poor and workin class will likely be screwed again with him on the bench.

[oldcoot]

26. One study linked abortion with lowered crime rates

I believe that one study has linked abortion rights to lower crime rates. If this study is accurate and Roe v. Wade is overturned, crime rates might again increase and this would affect everyone. We would, for example, be forced to pay those high taxes that Republicans supposedly hate to hire more police.

[paula777]

27. Your example of the rich girl flying to another state is not the norm

A lot of poor people accidently get pregnant too. Not everyone can afford a plane ticket or time off work, etc

[Jazzgirl]

29. There is little chance (none) that I will get pregnant

at this point in my life. However, I have always been a staunch believer in a woman's right to do what is best for her. Also, situations involving incest and rape are very much an issue since both are quite common unfortunately. I have a niece. I have friends with daughters. I don't want them to have to choose to go to a back-alley abortionist if they get in a situation they don't want to be in. Also, I am a little tired of men who won't ever have a chance of being in the situation philosophizing about it.

[Sgent]

36. A strict textualist like Scalia or Thomas

Would view a large majority of major laws as unconstitutional. They take the 10th ammendment to be sacrosanct, believe the 14th ammendment does not apply to most situations (and read it differently as well), and believe the commerce clause should only be used for one reason -- to actually regulate commerce of people/companies between states.

All this means that they would most likely find things such as the Civil Right's Act, possibly social security/medicare, and a variety of other programs to be illegal. It also would mean they find no right to privacy, no sex based rights at all, etc.

[Tsiyu]

32. I could tell you what to do with your opinion

but it would be against the rules.

Perhaps we can reach a point where we control everyone's genitalia. The government can check out your reproductive apparatus whenever they like, since you think it's really "no big deal" to most folks if the Constitution soon allows the government to control half the population's reproductive organs.

Submit YOUR organs to the government for their approval and medical advice. Then come back and tell me how that works out for you.

[Heddi]

35. Oh no no! That would never do

Why, that would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!

How DARE you suggest that men's reproductive choices and decisions be scruitinized by the government. Why, that's just as outlandish a thought as a sane person could have.

Shame on you.

The mere THOUGHT of a man having to go through lectures before he can get routine medications prescribed! That's just silly talk! Or to even have his life-saving medication prescription HELD by a pharmacist who doesn't agree with why a man is taking the medicine--that would NEVER happen in America. You must be thinking about Afghanistan or something.

And to think that you'd suggest that men be denied basic life-saving medical procedures. That's sexist.

And if a Man was raped, and goes to a catholic hospital, that they can refuse to give him life-saving medication and medical intervention because it goes against their religious beliefs--what are you, some kind of nut?

Sheesh...the things you people come up with! Where in the WORLD do you get these things? :)

[Tsiyu]

37. Thank you, ma'am. May I have another!

Oops! I was speaking as that other species. (LOL- where's the scientific logic in THAT phrase?). I forgot, for a moment, that as long as my struggles and oppression aren't endured by some MALES, they don't matter!

Post like the OP make me glad for guys like Skinner and ZombyWoof, who care even if it's never a situation they might face.

Cheers to the good guys :toast: and shame on the cowards and the cold-hearted...:thumbsdown:

[erinlough]

38. Maybe some of you can help me to come up with an equivalent

situation for a male to illustrate why some of us think this attitude on giving up Roe v Wade is not a possibility.

I'm thinking what if at some time in the future the theocracy decided that sex for anything but procreation is against the law, and in order to enforce this law they implant a male with a device that will prohibit ejaculation. The man will not be able to disperse this "holy seed" until he requests a permit from the Government. The deal also includes the fact that it can only be granted to married couples.

Most people in America are o.k. with it and the device, for the most part is safe and without problems. However some people develop complications when they enter puberty causing irritation and high fevers. You are one of those people, but the government has a no tolerance policy and you are denied the request.

Should you
A. Go to another country where the device will be removed knowing you can be jailed for a crime?
B. Get married in order to have the device removed and produce the desired children?
C. Live in your discomfort and hope the "right woman" comes along real soon?

I know this isn't the perfect analogy. I'm inviting anyone to fix it or offer their own.

[Heddi]

40. Depo-Provera shots would achieve that

DepoProvera, when used by women, is an injectable contraception.

When used in men, it produces chemical castration--reversable, I might add.

So if you inject a man with DepoProvera, you will render him castrated. No ejaculation.

Another DU'er proposed the same thing:

Require every male over the age of 12 (or when puberty starts, whichever is earlier) to be given depo-provera shots every month of their life.

Refusal to get teh shots would be punishable by law.

Shots can only be stopped with a valid marriage license AND a signed permission slip from the wife attesting to the fact that she understands that the cessation of these shots could result in her becoming pregnant.

The wife has the right to mandate a certain period of time--indefinite, for a month, a week, whatever, that she wishes the shots be stopped. They are to resume, if necessary, at the end of that 'allowance' period.

---

Another law:

All US citizens over the age of 17 are required to do the following:
Donate blood
donate plasma
donate bone marrow
donate every avialable organ during life and death.

Failure to do so will be punishable by law.

All organs that can be harvested during life (kidney, liver) will be placed on a registry. Upon someone needing that organ, the donator would be required to provide that organ, as well as pay for their part of the procedure and any pre-and post care that they need. They will not be compensated in any way for their donation.

They may be required to donate more than one organ during their life. Preference will not be given to relatives or close friends. You do not have the option to choose to not donate an organ in any situation, even if it means that your life could be at risk.

At death, alll organs will be donated to those in need. Your body will be donated to science for cadaver studies. You will then be cremated.

If it is found that you engage in risky behaviour that negates your ability to donate organs, blood, plasma, or marrow (such as smoking, drinking, having AIDS, hepatitis, cancer), you will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Failure to donate whole blood products every 56 days is punishable by 3 years in jail.

[sui generis]

91. that wouldn't disrupt most people's lives though so it's okay

put away the flame torch I'm being sarcastic

good post Heddi. I would add that overturning RvW is an invitation to take the next step on this path, and the next and the next.

If you are able to procreate but haven't had at least three kids or spent at least 18 - 23 consecutive years in marriage, you will be punished by having all your organs harvested, while still alive, since you are a waste of society's resources.

All your body parts are belong to me!

:evilgrin:

[bluestateguy]

41. Actually, I'll do it. Even though you missed the point of my post

For the record, BTW, I never advocated punting on this nomination, as some have said at DU. Why not take up your beef with them? I have always been pro-choice.

My point was that poor women will pay a far greater price than well to do, educated women in the event that Roe vs. Wade is tossed out. I didn't know that was such a controversial point.

Well anyway, as a man I have a problem with the fact that only men can be drafted for military service, but women are allowed to serve on draft boards to decide who gets a deferment and who has to serve. Right now, the military draft is something that cannot happen to women, but they get to decide which men serve and which men get to stay home.

For the record, I believe women should be subject to the draft.

As for your hypothetical choice, I'll take A, and then I'd likley stay in that country.

[erinlough]

48. I wasn't responding only to you, or even to you, sorry

I was actually responding to the last few days of comments. My Bad.

As for the draft, we don't have an idea what kind of draft this one would be. There hasn't been one for a while and before we jump to the conclusion it will be like vietnam war draft we might like to consider that drafts previous to the last one allowed rich men to pay someone else to serve for them. I don't think we have any idea what this crew can come up with. Your belief could become reality.

By the way I would make your same choice.

[smirkymonkey]

57. Well, only poor men will have to go to war, so I don't really see

it affecting the GOP vote one way or the other.

:sarcasm:

[DURHAM D]

76. Hello, right now the military draft is something that can't happen

to men either.

Also, the ERA was defeated in 1982 mainly on the premise that if passed women would be subject to the draft. So fine, pass the ERA and draft women when they start drafting men again.

And, for the record the current guidelines for a new draft includes drafting women.

[Heddi]

103. ah, but WOMEN were not the ones who decided that women could not serve

in combat functions.

MEN made that rule.

MEN made the rule that gays cannot serve in the military too

MEN made the rule that women could not be drafted for combat positions.

So you'd really have an argument to make if WOMEN decided that WOMEN couldn't serve in combat positions---but we didn't. Like so many other things in our lives, we had to have MEN make that decision for us.

So you want WOMEN to serve in the military in combat positions and be eligible for draft, then talk to the MEN who enabled that law in the first place.

And, btw, as a nurse--a female nurse, I am VERY MUCH draftable, seeing that I'm considered as a "highly needed speciality". If there were a draft, my ass would be just as tasty as the ass of an 18 year old male. And my ass would be right there on the front lines as well. So please save your draft argument for someone for whom it does not apply.

[kenny blankenship]

43. I think the point was more like : don't count on the GOP being hurt

too much if they manage to overturn Roe. The poster makes a point that the overturning of Roe doesn't immediately end abortion legal or otherwise, and the people may not react to less than an immediate threat. Not like we've always thought they would. So it may be a dangerous error to think the Republicans will be deterred from a direct attack on Roe by the thought of the consequences should they succeed.

The American public is strongly conditioned now to be alarmed about some things that are highly unlikely (international terrorism) while conditioned, on the other hand, to be patient as cows towards visible, undeniable, but incremental encroachments on their freedoms. Sometimes they are conditioned to think such encroachments are inevitable changes due to technological "progress", as in privacy erosion--can't fight the future they're always told. In this case too, they may prove more patient and gullible than you imagine, for reasons of conditioning. "It happens to other people--not people like me" is one powerful message lulling them to complacency. And as the poster points out, the change in the law will affect different classes differently. Some people who're allowed and encouraged in our system to be the most pro-active about looking out for their rights and interests will still be able to get abortions even if Roe is overturned. They can afford to be more complacent about the assault on reproductive freedom and some of them will be more complacent Ending Roe will split abortion access not just among states but it also tends to split the group of people most directly affected. Some women will care (or would care very much if they were able to devote thought to it instead of how they'll make ends meet this week); others will be tempted not to care so much because they will continue to have access to abortion, even if it's outlawed in their state. And this group with the most mobility is also the one with the greatest representation in government by the same token: their income. The people most able to affect the outcome will be the last group to feel the bite of new restrictive and invasive laws. Again, there is a sense of inevitable change that has been pounded into the American public about abortion given the corporate funded ascendancy of the Republican Party and its need to toss crumbs to its Religiously Insane footsoldiers. We've seen abortion rights chipped away at in several cases, as well as abortion as an available service hounded from the public space in much of the country by Christian terrorism, legally countenanced by sympathetic, GOP appointed courts as "free speech". We've come to accept so many unacceptable things. We've come to accept that corporations will slash their workforces and embezzle their pensions. We've to accept that rich defendants walk free and corporations get aquitted through loopholes in the laws they themselves were allowed to write. We've come to accept that the rich will enjoy a different health care system from the rest of us, just as they live in walled off communities. We've come to accept the President can send the Army to attack a country for the money it might mean to him, to his political supporters and his Vice President. The public has been steadily conditioned to accept that this fight will only end with the overturning of Roe and the capitulation of mainstream female opinion that abortion is the taking of a life.

If anything, the original poster is telling us there is more cause to be alarmed for reproductive rights than many people are presently acknowledging : if the Republicans won't in fact be as damaged by overturning Roe as we always used to think they would be, and if the years of bashing away at abortion rights have finally turned public opinion, or at least drilled a sense of resignation into public opinion wrt to the fate of Roe and abortion rights as a whole, and if the Republicans are reading this shift the same way too, then they are probably much more likely to attempt what was once unthinkable and take down Roe.

[kenny blankenship]

34. How can abortion be legal in one state and not in another?

Isn't there an equal protection issue in here somewhere? Won't redstaters come after the abortion clinics in blue states, claiming there is a 14th Amendment issue, just as soon as they're done outlawing them in their own states?

I understand that overturning Roe v. Wade would throw the issue back to the states procedurally, but I'm asking armchair Constitutional scholars whether that could possibly be the end of it. I don't think so. Seems to me like it's one of those very basic issues and rights like slavery or marriage: it either exists everywhere the same ultimately, or it doesn't exist. For a long time we had some states free and some with slaves. It couldn't go on forever, one side or another had to win out because slavery in the south meant legal recognition of slavery in the north under the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution. The territories were squabbled over as the key to whether the North would have slavery eventually imposed on it or the South would eventually be forced to give up slavery. In spite of all the Compromises, no compromise was ultimately possible. Likewise with gay marriage or interracial marriage: what's a marriage in one state eventually has to be a marriage in all of them because people move around and states are obliged under the Constitution to extend full faith and credit to the legal acts and documents of other states. Either such marriages were legal from Atlantic to Pacific or they couldn't be legal anywhere eventually.

With abortion, I doubt the Bible thumpers are going to be content to outlaw it in their states alone. Defeating Roe will just be a waystation for them.

[dsc]

54. easily

States get to decide what is and what isn't a criminal act. In all honesty some of what you say may be true but I have real doubts that a national law would happen and if one didn't, no amount of lobbying would make states like NY, IL, CT, CA, MA and a host of others ban abortion. Slavery only really came to a head when the South tried to force it down our throats with the fugitive slave law and Dred Scot. I think if abortion remained legal in places like MA people in MS would likely just tut tut about MA values.

[crispini]

42. Wow, half the people in this thread are completely missing the point.

His whole post is about whether or not overturning Roe v. Wade will "doom" the GOP. Jeez Louise, the lack of reading comprehension illustrated on this thread is just stunning. :shrug:

[Tsiyu]

51. Because blanket statements are made regarding

the ability of women to procure reproductive services (in the OP) I believe there is some excellent reading comprehension taking place here.

[crispini]

74. No, not really.

In your post upthread, for example, you totally tear the OP a new one, pretty much accusing him of wanting to control everyone's genitalia. Jump to conclusions much? The OP doesn't say ANYTHING about his stance about Roe v. Wade, he even states that he thinks we should fight the nomination, but he's trying to make a kind of nuanced point here about what *might* happen to the GOP voters (and the rest of us) if it were.

It's totally possible to discuss a hypothetical point without WANTING that hypothetical point to happen. Hypothetically, I might lose my job tomorrow, and starting from that hypothetical point I might need to think about certain things. That doesn't mean I WANT it to happen.

[Tsiyu]

79. If we're going to hypothesize

we need to start by understanding our subject. The OP makes some broad statements that are not, in my opinion, factual.

I understand the end point he's trying to make. I also understand that he stated up front that his post may seem insensitive. It was.

We should not come to this discussion with half-truths and assumptions nor should we approach it with some lukewarm 'political strategy' mindset.


We are talking about women's bodies and lives and, given the passion involved in the recent discussions here, we should remember that this is a "sensitive" subject and write accordingly.

[crispini]

84. I'd be interested in...

your take about which of the OP's statements are factually incorrect? He points out that those who are more well off will probably still have access to abortion, as occurred in the past, so that seems accurate to me. What other statements do you have a problem with? Which are insensitive?

As far as the OP's mindset, you know, I see this phenomenon over and over again on DU: the "more passionate than thou." The people who get SO emotionally torqued up over whatever issue that they run around demanding that everyone else feel an equal degree of passion. Unfortunately, that's just not possible. This is a big place, and there are a lot of people here who are interested in approaching whatever issue it is from a more reasoned point of view. These are not necessarily people who don't care, but people who are able to separate their caring from a discussion of the isssue.

[JerseygirlCT]

52. Glad you wrote that

I kept going back to re-read the OP, and wondering what it was I was missing...

It's a good point, unfortunately. Most of the pro-choice Repubs live in blue or close to blue states. There rights will not be diminished. And their passion for the cause cannot go very deep, or they wouldn't be a part of today's GOP.

It's the poor, and the women in red states, who will suffer the most. In fact, in many places, abortion might as well be illegal, b/c it's so unavailable. Look for lots more of the same in the future.

Until we successfully move the topic from abortion to an individual's right to make personal medical decisions, we'll be up against this. It's bigger than abortion. It's about bodily integrity.

[wookie294]

44. You make good points

I'm one of those people who've always said overturning Roe would doom the GOP, but you've got me re-thinking that notion. As you said, the Red State "princess" (lol) who gets pregnant at frat parties will use daddy's cashola to obtain an out-of-state abortion. So, overturning Roe won't affect the little trust fund child. Perhaps overturning Roe would help get more of the working class nonvoters to VOTE, which might doom the GOP.

[Nikia]

46. It does sound insensitive

Because working class, red state women are just as important as anyone else. Your post is, of course, insulting to them as many posters have pointed out especially since men never have to worry about getting pregnant.
I also disagree with you. As I said, working class women are just as important as anyone else. They will be affected by this directly or have other female friends or relatives directly affected by this. They could possibily become a new loyal Democratic voting block who will cause many of those red states to go blue.

[Zero Division]

47. Yikes, quite the misinterpretation by a lot of responders on this thread.

I'm guessing most of them incorrectly assumed that you don't care whether Roe is defeated or not because of the thread title, an opinion which does not appear to be expressed anywhere in your post.

Getting back to you main point: I too have never believed the idea that Roe is safe because of pro-choice Republicans. The Republicans will not, IMO, lose abortion as an issue with the defeat of Roe. It will become a fierce battle within many states possibly leading to the eventual threat of severe national restrictions on abortion rights once anti-choice Republicans find their state-wide efforts to be futile. At the very least, the anti-choice movement would use the issue to dissuade economically populist Republicans and social conservatives from voting for Democrats by pointing out that Democrats would work toward a reinstatement of Roe or a Roe-like legal ruling or constitutional amendment.

The defeat of Roe may provoke one of the greatest galvanizations of social libertarians against social conservatism, but it does not necessarily follow that the agenda of the Religious Right and their cohorts will necessarily be defeated by this galvanization.

I think those who either believe Roe to be safe or that its defeat will not have significantly negative consequences need to think more deeply about all of the possible consequences of Roe's defeat.

[quinnox]

49. For me this is not a critical important issue

I'm sure I will be attacked for this but yes I'm a male and this abortion thing is not one of my top issues. But I understand how women would find this important, it's just not a main issue for me.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

61. Do you have a wife? Daughters? Sisters?

You'd take away the rights of 51% of the population? You're quite the Democrat! :eyes:

It's also about the right to privacy. I guess you don't care if the government stops you from masturbating either.

[Tommymac]

50. It's not just about Abortion...It's also about the Rigth of Privacy

Overturning Roe V Wade will affect a lot of things...blue state as well as red.

See thread here for a some discussion. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4158670&mesg_id=4158670

[dsc]

53. Wow, threads like these make me really wonder about our education system

I am so glad that toward the end of this thread some people actually showed some ability to read. Sadly the people who post here are likely to be among the best educated that society has to offer and the performance was dismal, just dismal. That said.

I honestly think you overestimate how many states would ban abortion or put extremely major restrictions upon it. I have severe doubts that states such as NC, FL, IA, and VA, all of which are red, would actually ban abortion outright, for instance. Though, I think all of them would regulate it much more than they currently do (maybe not IA). Conversely, I think some blue states, such as Washington and Oregon may actually regulate abortion more than you seem to think. In any case, I think most people seeking abortions (that is women in the first trimester) will have an ability to get them.

Your main point, that those who would have the most problem obtaining abortions in a highly regulated enviroment is true. Though, your analysis of its lack of cost to the GOP may well be wrong. One group of women Bush did very well with was single women with no college education. I would think those women would be immensely more likely to fall into the class of women you describe, than they would be to fall outside it.

In any case you posted bravely and gave much to think about.

[insane_cratic_gal]

56. I think we've read what was written

just fine thanks. Nice pop job at people intelligence though. You wonder why we are called Elitist.
Let me spell it out for you. It's these points that are pissing everyone off.

"But not everybody in this country would have their lives disrupted if Roe vs. Wade were overturned. Obviously, if R v. W were overturned most of the red states would ban abortion (except Nevada and maybe Alaska), while no laws would change in the blue states."

An easy assumption to make if your not pregnant. The point, we can't even start making those assumptions or we have lost the fight!! Defeatism at it's finest.

And the other analogy was nasty and pissy, about a Red state princess having to cross lines to go have an abortion. I don't care if the Woman is Bush's twins knocked up at the same time. She's still entitled to do what she will with her body.

You guys try to make it so simple. What if she's required to have lived in that blue state for x months before being able to have the procedure? Sure they can fake it, establish residence. Here's the flip side to that, how appropriate is for that Redneck hick who's boyfriend is beating her? How is she going to terminate her pregnancy so she can move out of the danger? What do you tell her? You fucking tell her "not everybody in this country would have their lives disrupted." Because she can cart off to a blue state to have one. If Roe is over turned it's because we failed her. WE fail entire generations of daughters and mothers and wives. That quite frankly pisses me off, we'd give up based on.. Whelp screw those red-staters democratic woman, they deserve what they get.

To make another point.. What happened to the gay marriages preformed in CA.. where they honored back home in AL? NM? NH? Could you get married in Mass, if you were from NY? I'll answer for you. Nope and Nope.

[dsc]

62. Why oh why would I think you couldn't read?

Might it be that you still, despite not only the OP but several posters pointing out what he clearly meant that you still don't get what he actually wrote?

His point is clearly that rich women would still be able to get abortions under just about any regulatory scheme that is likely to occur if Roe v Wade falls. Just like wealth gays can go to places like MA and CA and get married (it is a bit different than abortion in that a marriage would, one hopes, last decades). Maybe the word princess was out of line, though I think this was the first post which brought that up.

It is crystal clear, to anyone who can read, that this poster:

a) thinks that if Roe v Wade is overturned rich women will suffer far less consequences than poor women (gosh and the sky is blue, who would have thunk it)

b) that due to that fact, the problems we expect the GOP to have in the face of an overturn of Roe are overblown

thus

c) the GOP wouldn't be seriously damaged by the overturn of Roe v Wade

He also pointed out he supports Roe v Wade in the post.

No where does he state, imply, or in any other way lead any reasonable reader to conclude that he finds the facts he set out to be favorable or good.

In all honesty, if I asked a student to read his post, tell me what it said, and got your post in response, I would give that student nothing better than a D. If all of them returned responses like yours I would sincerely wonder if I were fit to teach.

No reasonable reading of the OP suggests that he feels that no women will be affected or that low income women wouldn't be in the way you suggest. But he does say, and frankly he may well be right, that for many rich pro choicers as long as they can get an abortion they won't care if poor people can or can't. Again, his point is very clear.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

63. For the record, out of state gays cannot marry in MA

yet.

[dsc]

67. I thought they could

if they swore to an intention to remain in the state (with said intention being able to mean only the next hour). My source for that is a Showtime documentary about several couples who got married in MA including one from NY.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

68. There's an old 1913 law that applied to out of state interracial couples

they are going to address that law in the fall, but until then, you have to move to my beautiful state of you want to marry your partner.

[dsc]

72. They must have clamped down then

the NY couple did get married and did do the swear an oath thing meaning only a few days. It did sound kind of cheesy to be honest.

[insane_cratic_gal]

69. Perhaps it's not my comprehension

that is suffering but the line of thought is not clear.

He makes 2 inflammatory statements 3 actually with title, the rather ridiculous comment that one one would "really suffer"

So if he meant his princes red statement to be hilarious the humor quite missed it's mark.


Like me stating an opinion, then throwing in some inflammatory bait dead in the middle of making my point. You will see nothing else but glaring statement that is offensive. All i see when I look at that is .. "But not everybody in this country would have their lives disrupted if Roe vs. Wade were overturned."


Also you should of read it before it was edited, I can assure the points were not well made. Could that possibly be why the elitist among us failed to comprehend his point?

[dsc]

73. I honestly can't read the uneditted post

so on that you do have me. But it is axiomatic that not everyone would have their lives disrupted if Roe v Wade were overturned. Some percentage of people would be very happy. Another, substantial percentage would find nothing different. Those are undeniable truths. That doesn't mean that no one would suffer. Nor does it say the suffering of those who do is just, or even necessary. But it does lead one to wonder just how much the GOP would suffer as a party if Roe got overturned. I do think he is wrong on that to some extent. I would have titled the post differently. The princess line probably was not the best idea. But his central point, as expressed in his editted post, is both clear, and I think accurate.

[smirkymonkey]

98. You know, not everyone's life would be disrupted if gays

were not allowed to marry or were discriminated against. In fact, I don't think it would damage the GOP at all. Of course, I believe in gay rights, but I just don't think the issue is going to matter to most people one way or the other.

[dsc]

100. You are quite right

which is why the GOP gains from that issue. Getting mad at you for saying it would be utterly irrational. That is one reason gays have had to go to courts to get their rights. Minorities are always in this position and it takes something major to change that dynamic. White became outraged by the treatment of blacks in the South after things like the Birmingham church bombing, the murder of the lady from Detroit, the murder of Goodman, Swartz, and Cheney, and the unleashing of dogs on protesters in Alabama. I haven't a clue what it would take to change the dynamic sufficiently in the case of gays. Shepard, many thought, would do that. Clearly it didn't.

But, again, your pointing out an undeniable fact, isn't the problem here.

Incidently please point out where I used the word most, in my post. If you are going to quote people don't do so falsely. Otherwise you made a fair point.

[ibegurpard]

102. I'm not sure what you were trying to say with this post

Were you hoping to get some kind of reaction that you could then label as hypocritical?
Your statement is correct...similar to the statement by the OP. People who comfort themselves by saying the GOP would pay if they managed to do away with Roe v. Wade are whistling past the graveyard.

[smirkymonkey]

104. I think eventually the GOP would lose since both issues are

what sway most of the fundies to vote for them in the first place. Without the wedge issues of Abortion and Gay Rights, the maniacally religious might then start paying attention to the fact that they don't have a roof over their heads and can't afford to put gas in their car.

There are a lot of people out there who vote Republican SOLELY based on these two issues.

[electron_blue]

55. Whoa you really don't get it

First of all, "daddies" rarely find out about their pregnant daughters. The daughters go seek abortion on their own, or with the help of their partner or more often, their girl friends. They are often terrified that their parents would find out.

Second of all - so what if *i* could personally afford an abortion, or one for my daughter or nieces? (assumign I would find out they needed one in the first place)

What about all the women who can't afford it, or just can't manage to get out to a blue state in time? There is a reason we fight for the rights of all, especially the less-fortunate. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it helps everyone in the community.

Forcing women to finish pregnancies they would rather abort will lead to higher poverty rates, higher mortality rates of children, more drug use, more gangs, and so forth. Can we really afford more of this?

[woldnewton]

59. It's funny when you say that...

To be honest, I need to say *pfukke* it --


the pro-choice groups...


should ask for proof that the people they help voted for Democrats before helping anyone...


I hate to say it, but at what point is enough, enough??

----------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to fighting anti-abortion legislation state by state, pro-choice groups would probably want to start raising money to provide grants to poor women in red states to transport them to blue states where abortion is legal.

[insane_cratic_gal]

60. whatever

Like saying I want your voting record before you post here

:eyes:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

that would be interesting...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

64. that would be interesting...

[lynne]

65. I believe it was 17 states that allowed abortion -

- prior to Roe v. Wade but I don't know which states they were. I'm curious as to if those states are the same as today's blue states.

Anyone know which states allowed abortion prior to Roe v Wade?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. The only ones I know of for sure were

New York (which had the most liberal law) and Colorado, possibly California.

I remember what happened to women and girls with unwanted pregnancies before 1973. If they were in even a casual dating relationship, they married the father of the child. The term was, "They had to get married." Great way to start a marriage, especially at 15 or 16, huh? A lot of younger people have never heard the term.

If marriage was impossible, they went to an out-of-state institution for unwed mothers and gave the baby up for adoption.

If they were afraid to let anyone know, they sought out a back alley abortion. After the mid 1960s, the more affluent flew to Europe or else arranged for a private doctor to treat them for "appendicitis."

[dsc]

70. Here is a list

Footnote 37 ] Fourteen States have adopted some form of the ALI statute. See Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-303 to 41-310 (Supp. 1971); Calif. Health & Safety Code 25950-25955.5 (Supp. 1972); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 40-2-50 to 40-2-53 (Cum. Supp. 1967); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 24, 1790-1793 (Supp. 1972); Florida Law of Apr. 13, 1972, c. 72-196, 1972 Fla. Sess. Law Serv., pp. 380-382; Ga. Code 26-1201 to 26-1203 (1972); Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3407 (Supp. 1971); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 43, 137-139 (1971); Miss. Code Ann. 2223 (Supp. 1972); N. M. Stat. Ann. 40A-5-1 to 40A-5-3 (1972); N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-45.1 (Supp. 1971); Ore. Rev. Stat. 435.405 to 435.495 (1971); S. C. Code Ann. 16-82 to 16-89 (1962 and Supp. 1971); Va. Code Ann. 18.1-62 to 18.1-62.3 (Supp. 1972). Mr. Justice Clark described some of these States as having "led the way." Religion, Morality, and Abortion: A Constitutional Appraisal, 2 Loyola U. (L. A.) L. Rev. 1, 11 (1969).

By the end of 1970, four other States had repealed criminal penalties for abortions performed in early pregnancy by a licensed physician, subject to stated procedural and health requirements. Alaska Stat. 11.15.060 (1970); Haw. Rev. Stat. 453-16 (Supp. 1971); N. Y. Penal Code 125.05, subd. 3 (Supp. 1972-1973); Wash. Rev. Code 9.02.060 to 9.02.080 (Supp. 1972). The precise status of criminal abortion laws in some States is made unclear by recent decisions in state and federal courts striking down existing state laws, in whole or in part.

end of quote

This is from the decision itself. Some amazing states on that list, such as Mississippi and other amazing absences such as Massachusetts and Connecticut. Though the latter two aren't that surprising if you know the early privacy cases. CT was really uptight back then.

[bluestateguy]

75. Anti-abortionism used to be more of a Catholic thing

This is before the predominantly Protestant "religious right", as we know it today, became well organized politically. Many of the major Protestant churches did not make much of a fuss about abortion, but the Catholic church did.

[OhNoTheyDidNot]

78. Catholic prients don't want any form of birth control - leaves em fewer

children to prey on

[Love Bug]

92. I don't see MN on that list

I don't think it's correct for us to assume that if Roe V Wade is overturned abortion will automatically be legal in blue states.

If I understand this correctly, if they didn't have those statutes on the books at the time of RVW (and there was no reason to pass such legislation after RVW) a lot of states (including blue ones) will have to pass legislation legalizing abortion. Let's not assume just because a state went for Kerry last year that they have Democratically controlled legislatures. Also, the anti-choice crowd is not going to be satisfied with overturning RVW, either. They are going to fight, with the GOP backing them up, every state that tries to pass their own version of RVW. This can go on for years and in the meantime many women's lives will be ruined.

[dsc]

99. It depends

I would imagine that many states which banned abortion had to be sued to stop enforcing the law even after Roe. Any state that had that happen may well have a state level injunction based on stuff in the state's constitution. Also, some states have a rule that if a statute is ruled unconstitutional it automaticly is repealed. In those states, the laws would be gone as well. I have no idea what would be the case in MN.

[IdaBriggs]

71. 2% of All Pregnancies are Ectopic or Cervical.

Do I need to explain this to you? Its not just about "bad sex" decisions.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. The Value Of Roe v Wade Is In It's Symbolic As Well As Real Power

Most women would never have an abortion even if was available but they want to know their decision to have or not have an abortion is their decision and not the decision of the government...


If Roe is overturned it will mean women are not sovereign over their own body and if a woman is isn't sovereign over her own own body then you have the predicate to pass a myriad of laws regarding human sexuality....

[crispini]

85. aHA! This post explained a lot to me.

Thanks!

[sui generis]

88. beautifully stated

and right on target -

Overturning RvW is a giant step, both in reality and symbolically, in the direction of totalitarianism. It only follows next that women MUST have children if they are of childbearing age and fertile. It follows that men must only have sex for the purpose of fathering children.

And of course we have to provide happy families for all these children, so make it illegal or otherwise terribly uncomfortable to be unmarried (to someone of the opposite sex), make homosexuality and any form of sexual choice illegal, and force parents to adopt if they can't reproduce.

And make sure that everyone goes to mainstream christian church three times a week and is ticketed for missing bible study.

I know it will never get "there", but I suspect that it is a vision that some people have for what would make a perfect America, and overturning RvW is the first step.

[NMMNG]

81. I live in what is typically called a "blue state"

Because in presidential elections the voters typically vote for the Democratic candidate. However our governor is a Rethuglican who has a mixed record of supporting womens' reproductive rights. Therefore it is entirely possible that if Roe v. Wade were overturned that my state could ban abortion. We are below the Mason-Dixon line and basically surrounded by red-states. Where are our working class and poor to go? And what of women like myself, who would only become pregnant via rape? This is more than just an "inconvenience for daddy's little princess" we're looking at.

So I'm sorry, but a lot of us would have our lives very disrupted, if only potentially, by having Roe v. Wade overturned.

[Love Bug]

93. If your state didn't already have laws on the books pre-Roe

legalizing abortion, it will automatically be illegal there if Roe is overturned.

[B Calm]

82. I am more concerned what this bastard will do to the few remaining

workers rights we have.

[CWebster]

86. Sort of like allowing the North to abolish slavery

and the South to keep it?

[Stuckinthebush]

90. Wow...you sure got some nasty comments re your post

I do think you are very correct on a number of your points. First, I think you would agree that it is important to fight like hell to make sure that RvW isn't overturned. It looks more and more like this will be an uphill battle. We all knew it was coming, and it is just around the corner.

Now, your contention that the red states will overturn it more so than the blue states is correct. I don't see the New England states outlawing abortion. I do see Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia doing it as fast as they can, however. So, your point here is well made.

Your point about how this will affect low income people more so than middle and upper class individuals is well made too. I have made this argument a number of times to conservative anti-choice folks I know, and they get red in the face. I tell them that if they push for the outlawing of abortion, my daughters and wife will still get one if they need it - in a medically safe manner. I don't give a GD about their law because it is immoral. The people who get hurt the most are those that do not have the means to either travel to a state or country where it is legal, or have the connections in the community to find the MD who will do it on the down low. This is immoral.

I agree with you that pro-choice groups will need to not only fight this state by state, but also start organizations that will transport women to states where it is legal. This will, of course, send the right wing into red-faced rage, but it will need to be done.

I also agree with you that the GOP won't suffer from a backlash from their base, because it is mainly populated with white males and white women who accept with glee the bonds placed on them by men. You are correct in assuming that these supporters will have no qualms about taking their daughters or wives to another state to get an abortion as long as they are getting their tax breaks. Another poster mentioned a backlash from single women who vote GOP, and that is probably true. I don't think, though, that it will cause the main part of the base to rethink its allegiance one bit.

So, in whole I see no problem with your assertions. You are right on the money with this one. I am saddened by the prospect of many poor and unconnected women having to either carry an unwanted pregnancy to term or having a back alley abortion. We will see a steep rise in issues related to unwanted children in the future, and we as a society will have to deal with it. But the fight is not over yet, and we should put all of our effort and dollars into doing what is necessary to make sure this future never happens.

Thanks for the post.

[MattSWin]

94. The abortion issue and Roberts is pretty irrelevant

I doubt anyone will oppose this guy just because he thinks Roe v. Wade was a bad decision.

I think the only way Roberts won't be approved by the Senate is if his general judicial philosophy puts far right ideology over reasoned interpretation of the law and the Constitution.

The Democrats in the Senate just aren't as extreme in their views as many DUers so I doubt Roberts will be rejected just because he's allegedly pro-life.

I feel the Senate needs to fully inspect his overall judicial philosophy simply because if they focus too narrowly on abortion and he's a far right ideologue they'll miss the opportunity to demostrate to moderate Republicans that he's an ideologue.

[hunter]

95. I want to SCREAM: The Roberts nomination is NOT about abortion!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

The abortion issue is a distraction!

Bush has nominated Roberts for one reason, and one reason only, and that is to cover up the horrendous mess Dick Cheney's failed energy policy has left us in.

Dick Cheney's energy "task force" shifted the foundations of U.S. energy and economic policy onto a foundation of utterly blatant kleptocracy. They assumed they would have full control of electric power generating capacity within the United States, and the oil production capacity of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Venezuala, and much of the former Soviet Union.

This was a fatal miscalculation, and the consequences will be dire: much of the United States economy will lie in ruins within a decade, and many more will die in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The criminals who percipitated this disaster know they are in deep shit and they will do everything they can to pack the Supreme Court with fawning little toadies such as John Roberts -- a man who has already done a great deal of work covering up this malfeasance.

Bluestatesguy has it exactly right: the criminal class running this nation doesn't give a single God Damn about abortions, except as they can make political hay of the issue. They can always send their daughters to places where safe abortions are available.

As it concerns the Roberts nomination, the abortion issue is simply sand in your eyes. The Bush administration WANTS you to talk about Roberts' abortion stance -- it is a distraction, a misdirection. They do not want you to talk about Roberts' involvement in the Administration's energy policies, or the true reasons for the utterly disasterous invasions of Iraq, and yes, Afghanistan.

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Iris]

101. Griswold vs. Connecticut

Gives married couples the right to use contraception.

Taking away the pill and IUD and resorting once again to barrier methods would probably disrupt a lot of peoples lives in more ways than one.

[foreigncorrespondent]

105. Oh please!

You said: "I hope this does not sound insensitive on Roe vs. Wade"

Why did you state it like that? Did you know it would sound insensitive? And on top of that, just plain stupid.

BSG, let me put it to you this way. Roe v Wade isn't about abortion rights for women, it is about women having control over their own bodies. If you were able to fall pregnant, you wouldn't be stating what you have stated.

As many people in the past on DU have said (including guys) if men were able to fall pregnant there would be an abortion clinic on every corner.