bye bye Roe vs. Wade

[dR. O]

Dubya Gump gets 2 supreme court appointments i.e. bye bye roe vs. wade

[jasmeel]

1. Hello to much more suffering for women.

[still_one]

3. no offense, but if they were so concerned about this

THEY SHOULD HAVE VOTED IN 2000 and 2004

the turnout was dismal at best

they won't understand until it starts to hurt

and this is only the beginning before people of both genders realize how important it is to vote

[friesianrider]

7. Who is "they"? Women? nt

[still_one]

11. anyone who is pro-choice, and didn't vote democratic

[friesianrider]

19. Oh, ok, gotcha.

I agree...all the people who thought Roe really wasn't at risk and voted for Chimpy. It's very sad indeed.

[friesianrider]

2. Hey there dR. O!

Good to see you back! :hi:

I agree with you...Roe is in serious jeopardy, and I'm afraid our Dem leadership will not stand up for Roe when it comes time to vote on Chimpy's nominees.

[goddess40]

4. Q: What's George W. Bush's position on Roe vs. Wade?

A: He really doesn't care how people get out of New Orleans

Says a lot doesn't it?

[BeFree]

8. He didn't care

Whether they rowed or waded out of New Orleans. He didn't care that they were even flooded. He didn't 'imagine' it at all.

I'm gonna steal from a post below about how his SCOTUS pick is tantamount to his pick for FEMA: it is pure politics without any basis in good government practices. If we had an effective congress neither one of his picks would have seen the light of day, nor would the US be killing Iraqis by the boatload.

Bend over and kiss your rights goodbye!

[Todd B]

5. Do you actually think they'll overturn Roe v. Wade?

No - if they do, they'll lose an important wedge issue that drives voters to the polls. Like all politicians, they'll say what people want to hear in order to get elected.

Besides, even if it is overturned, it doesn't mean abortion would instantly be illegal - it would just put it back in the hands of the states to decide what to do. I believe it would then have to be voted on in the legislature and sent out to the voters as a ballot referendum.

[Pepperbelly]

9. why would it have to be referred to the voters?

Most states, if a law is passed, a law is passed. The only things that have to be voted on here are publicly initiated acts and constitutional amendments if referred by the legislature.

[nyhuskyfan]

6. Wouldn't it likely still be 5-4 in favor?

Rehnquist was in the negative column, anyway. They don't gain much by his departure, even if Roberts is way off to the right (incidentally, could someone in these hearings please point out he has two years on the bench -- we saw what happened with FEMA when a guy with two years experience in his field was in charge of something).

We need to make sure that Breyer, Ginsburg, et al stay healthy for a couple more years.

[cally]

12. O'Connor was the 5th vote

So the next appointee will be the one to decide whether women have control over their bodies. Remember, Roe is based on the right to privacy. The first case was whether a woman can get birth control. Many other cases are built on this. It's critical to maintain this right.

[AJH032]

10. even IF Roe v. Wade dies, abortion won't necessarily be illegal

I believe it would simply be decided on a state-by-state basis.

[Vickers]

14. Poor people in red states are (ahem) fucked.

Rich girls in red states will jet over to the non-hanger doctor in a blue state.

[Lars39]

15. Some info for you:

From NARAL:http://www.naral.org/yourstate/whodecides/trends/issues_constitutional_protection.cfm

"...with no federal constitutional protection, Congress would be free to ban abortion nationwide, which would trump state constitutional protections....

16 states' constitutions provide greater protection for a woman's right to choose than does the federal constitution: AK, AZ, CA, CT, FL, IL, IN, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, TN, VT, WV.

[AJH032]

17. thanks

that's a good point

[Mass]

13. No, the last decision was 6-3

Roberts does not change the balance.

Whoever will replace O'Connors will bring it to 5-4.

That does not mean that these two nominations are not important, as it is perfectly possible that a third nomination could occur during the next three years or that the next president is a pro-life.

[femrap]

16. I believe you are wrong...I think it was Casey vs.

Pennsylvania.....and it was 5-4 w/ O'Connor being #5.

I know the Repukes like this as a wedge issue...what has happened and will to happen is just making Roe weaker and weaker...until just rich women have freedom to control their lives.

And, yes, they may go the Federalist route and let each state decide....I will move. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT....and I won't spend one thin dime in a state that makes life hard on women.

There are times when I think it only fair that if the gov't is going to force a woman into compulsory motherhood that women should be able to force men into not being fathers.....!

[Mass]

18. You're right, but the current balance was 6-3 as far as we can know

a justice that voted against the majority (White) in 91 has been replaced by one who is a pro-choicer.

This does not change the importance of this decision. Even if you are in a blue state, you dont know what this federal govt could do.

[okieinpain]

20. oh no honey see the soccer mom's are all quite sure that * is a

good guy and he would never do anything like that. you liberals are just out to make trouble. poor georgie, see he even asks for a potty break.

[LittleClarkie]

21. Oh no. Not their wedge issue! The horror!

What will they do for votes THEN?