WSJ letter: If Roe Is Overturned, Will It Devolve to the States?

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal


If Roe Is Overturned, Will It Devolve to the States?
March 25, 2006; Page A9

Your news article "Abortion Issue Moves to States1" (March 9) rightly points to a proliferation of efforts in a number of states to challenge Roe v. Wade and to prohibit abortions if Roe were overturned. The article states that laws such as one in California, which have codified Roe, have the effect in their states of "essentially guaranteeing the right to abortion even if Roe is overturned." But if Roe v. Wade were overturned, Congress could pass and the president could sign a federal law that would override California's and other states' protections for women in their states seeking an abortion.

Marcia D. Greenberger
Co-President
National Women's Law Center
Washington

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114325253890408183.html (subscription)

[Devlzown]

1. I think it would depend on how far

the Supreme Court goes in rendering their decision. If the Court struck down Roe by simply stating that there isn't a constitutional right to privacy, then states would be free to make their own laws. If the Court went further and declared that fetuses are people, that would probably negate any state laws making abortion legal.

[question everything]

2. And this will really put the Republicans on the spot

Most of them do want the option of abortion for their family members and friends, but they are paying lip service to the rabid ones. And they know that if they'll need one, they should be able to travel to NY or to CA or to other states.

But they certainly would not like to have a total ban or, worse, to run the risk of breaking the law.

[BlooInBloo]

3. I assume the first thing they'll do is pass a federal law...

... banning abortion...

Duh.

Don't bother saying "no they won't, they've been trumpeting states' rights!". They lie. Anyone who believes them is a fool.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Just Like They're Trying to do With Gay Marriage

and like they already do with medical pot.


If they really believed in states' rights, Bush** wouldn't even be President,
because they wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court to get him installed.
The recounts that the Florida Supreme Court authorized would have made Gore President.

[cali]

12. There aren't enough votes

to pass a federal ban in Congress.. In the House there are only 15 more repukes than dems. I can think of at least that many pukes who wouldn't support such a ban. Some are pro-choice, others simply couldn't afford to because they come from districts that would boot them out. In the Senate, Collins, Snowe, Specter, Chafee come immediately to mind as folks who would not vote for a ban. We'll be gaining at least 2 seats in the Senate in November and several in the House. The majority of the pukes in Congress might wish for such a ban, but I seriously doubt it. They know that politics is the art of the possible and such a ban ain't. There would be a turnover in Congress like you've never seen. So it's not about believing them or not, it's about the reality of the situation.

[BlooInBloo]

17. Sure...

Just like all the support the faux-pro-choice republicans have given the pro-choice movement in the past...

Not.

{shrug} Maybe I'm the only one who recalls all of the arm-twisting that resulted in Snowe, Specter, Lieberman, and others caving in to the anti-choice side... The way they hold votes open for hours on end, blackmailing party members to vote their way.... The way they attach legislation on one subject to legislation on another, so that people who wouldn't normally vote for the former kind are forced to because of their desire for the latter...

Yah, right - "there aren't enough votes" - what a myopic view, that ignores the full range of tactics available to the majority party...

[cali]

19. Specifics please.

Precisely what do you mean by Specter et al buckling? Specter's vote for Alito? Sorry you're the one who's myopic, or perhaps ill informed. The republican party is weakened, but beyond that there are a great many repubs whose support for the pro-life movement is a matter of expediency. When it's no longer a tenable political position they won't adhere to it. You may have noticed the profound silence in Congress over the SD legislation. Hmm, why do you think that is? Could it be that they're aware that public opinion is against them? You're overestimating the personal dedication to the pro life movement of many of these pols. In addition, you forgot to address that they can't even attempt a federal law until Roe is overturned and that's absolutely not going to happen before the '06 elections. Practically all constitutional scholars think it's at least 3 years away from even being attempted.

Again - for the myopic - the real danger to Roe comes from the upholding of the Federal ban on so called PBA which will open the door to onerous restrictions in a way that nothing else has done since Casey in 1992. Many repubs are smart enough to know that they can kill Roe by hollowing it out so that it's nothing but an empty shell. They're already more than half way there. The pro life movement is divided about which tactic to pursue. Sure you hear more about those with a draconian approach, but it's those that are using semi stealth tactics that are successfully crippling a woman's right to choose.

I don't understand why this issue is so hard to grasp. There's a lot of information out there. It might behoove you to do some reading.

[bluestateguy]

4. That is very true

All these anti-abortionists, as if they were these innocent Jeffersonian democrats, claim that they just want to let the states decide in accordance with the values of the people who live in those states.

But sure enough if Roe v. Wade was overturned, these people would show no respect at all to states like California or Massachusetts, who would choose to keep abortion legal in accordance with their values and beliefs. These anti-abortionists would be the first ones to carp and bitch and complain about abortion being legal in the blue states. Then they would demand federal intervention to overturn pro-abortion rights laws enacted by the blue states.

[bobbieinok]

6. like they have already done with food labelling and are trying to do

with health care

they write a federal law that preempts state laws and is much weaker and/or much more restrictive than state laws

see the DU discussions on a federal law that would stop many insurance-company-paid-for diabetic treatments mandated by states....among many other diseases that would be severely affected

[tritsofme]

7. I somewhat disagree

The same Court that strikes down Roe would probably strike down a federal law banning or enshrining abortion based on the commerce clause.

[question everything]

8. I certainly hope so

and I hope that the legal eagles in our side are preparing for this

[Norquist Nemesis]

9. If they tried to pass a federal law, it would expose them as liars

and hypocrites. All along, their argument has been that it should be a states rights issue/it should go back to the states. If they now pass a federal law over it, it would be an uproar like Schaivo, IMO.

The anti-choicers want it banned, yes. But the people they've been supporting for elections and the hate-mongers have been faithfully preaching to overturn back to the individual states.

[Occulus]

10. These people believe in "lying to save unborn lives".

They don't care that they're lying about their motives- for them, it's "whatever it takes". Honesty doesn't cross their minds, because to them, it would be akin to telling your enemy your battle plans.

They definitely think in terms of war; just look at the terminology of their cause. As they do, they at once dehumanize other people- namely, women- and enable themselves to do things they normally would not.

[Norquist Nemesis]

22. We may be talking about different groups

I was referring to the politicians. And it's not difficult to dig up their statements and speeches on 'the unborn' or pre-born or whatever emotionally charged term is used for the moment.

These are the people that have the statements about giving it back to the states. Also claiming the SC was activist in 'finding' privacy in the Constitution.

As in Schiavo, when they inserted themselves, there was a huge outcry. And it was a wholly-owned Con stunt that backfired on them...badly.

That's what I was trying to say, just not doing a good job of making it clear.

[depakid]

16. Like they care!

There are already two bills before Congress (that will probably pass with DINO help) to overturn ALL state food labeling and ALL state health insurance mandates for things like maternity care and diabetes management.

These people don't have ANY coherent philosophy- it's either all aout the corruption- or all about the theocracy. Nothing else matters to them.

[Norquist Nemesis]

23. The food labeling is from the food industry

and the insurance mandates from insurance lobbies, both corporate issues. The abortion issue is from the very core of their 'base'. Just like the Schiavo intervention was. The Con politicians badly misjudged the tactic.

But, IMHO, what matters MOST to these politicians is maintaining a majority. It keeps their pockets lined while they're in office, and guarantees a lucrative post-political career. If they tried to write a federal ban on abortion, vs. 'putting it back to the states' it would be political suicide.

[BlooInBloo]

18. Hello? Have you been alive for the last 10+ years?

ROFL - like the republican party is going to let a little thing like HYPOCRISY get in their way...

Sheesh - the blinders we wear here....

[cali]

20. Perhaps the poster

was trying to point out that there'd be a steep political price to pay- something political analysts of all persuasions, point out.

[Norquist Nemesis]

25. Thank you!

Short, sweet, and said much better than I was able to. :)

[Norquist Nemesis]

24. LOL! More like 30 years as far as the politics goes

Hypocritical speech keeps the masses enthusiastic and opening their wallets; it's the action that gets them in trouble. :)

[Hosnon]

11. There is a big difference between it being unconstitutional to outlaw

a practice and it being unconstitutional to allow that practice.

That is a 180 degree switch...I wouldn't expect that to happen.

[kestrel91316]

13. I betcha you wouldn't ever expect a good bible-believing "christian"

to stab you in the back either, right?

[Hosnon]

14. I dunno but I don't expect the Supreme Court to make a 180 degree

turn with a net gain of one conservative.

[cali]

15. You're right, of course.

It's still 5-4 to preserve Roe. And if the court votes cert to the SD case, they'll uphold Roe, and thus strengthen. In fact, Roe is not in immediate danger, and anyone who ;says it is is a fearmonger or fundraiser. The real danger comes from the incremental chipping away of Roe not the wholesale rejection of it.

[Katherine Brengle]

21. Overturning Roe would free the federal gov't to outlaw...

abortion nationally, but a federal law can be challenged in the SC just like a state law, so I don't see this happening--the federal gov't has no interest in getting involved in something like that.

More likely about 39 or so states would immediately outlaw abortion and the courts would be absolutely clogged with abortion rights cases.

It would be a disaster.