Questions About Roe Being Overturned

[cali]

Say Roe is overturned and thrown back to the states, that means that Oklahoma, for example, could criminalize it for women, doctors and folks who aid women who seek an abortion. Would Oklahoma institute the death penalty for those who perform abortions? Senator-elect Coburn said on MTP that he supported the DP for those who perform abortion. So we'd have states like MA, VT and CT where abortion would remain legal and states where it would be murder?

Is it possible that the SCOTUS could do something more extreme than throwing it back to the states? What would that look like?

And finally what would happen to the "penumbra" of privacy introduced by Griswold and further cemented by Roe. What other implications would that have? For the record, I don't think that birth control is in any danger.

[TomClash]

1. SCOTUS . . .

could only eliminate the constitutional protection. Then the Federal Government could pre-empt the states by passing federal legislation making abortion a federal crime - everywhere. Since many elected Repukes are honest states righters I'm not sure this would pass. I think if Roe goes Griswold is not far behind, though I think basically that decision is now limited to its facts.

[cali]

3. Thanks n/t

[TomClash]

5. You're welcome.

[hlthe2b]

2. I don't think Scotus can do anything but throw out Roe, until other cases

come to them, based on state's efforts to further restrict, regulate, or legislate, as I understand it. So, OK could pass a death penalty law, which should be tossed by their own supreme court, but, could go through the federal appeals courts and end up at Scotus, ultimately.

The most frightening thing for me, is that I have a close friend who is a constitutional lawyer. He has all but admitted that a stacked Scalia-type court might well render countless decades of precedence, upon which most can predict outcome of future cases, meaningless. Because these Federalist type judges, the RW wants so badly are the true activists judges, constructing new interpretation and legislating from the bench in total disregard of the true constitutional construct.

So, all bets are off.

[HockeyMom]

4. Condoms No, but the PILL YES

These people believe a fertilized egg is a "baby". Just look at the Connor Law. Majority of people have NO CLUE what that states. It says it murder for two starting at CONCEPTION. Now, the hell they think they can PROVE that one is beyond me, but THAT is how EXTREME these people are.

But getting back to the Pill, go on any of these so called "Christian" Family sites and you see that they consider ANYTHING that "kills" a fertilized egg to be abortion. Since the most common BC Pill contains progestin, it also makes the uterine lining thin and IF conception does occur, the fertilzed egg cannot implant and wil be flushed away. This is the same method that the Morning After Pill uses only in a lower dosage. We KNOW how they want to ban that. But of course, we can NEVER know with the BC Pill WHICH method, prevention of conception or prevention of implantation, is occurring. They WILL try to BAN the BC Pill too.

[FellowAmerican]

6. It is my understanding that most repugs do

not want to repeal roe v. wade but adhere to it's established meaning . . . abortion only in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. Can they do this?

[electric-eye]

7. test

please pardon me