door opens on dissing roe v wade

sigh!

Should Bush succeed in stacking the USCC with conservative bible thumping judges, which of course is his aim. There is no doubt that we will be bidding Roe V Wade farewell.

Is there anybody out there who thinks there should be some restrictions on R v W, but that it should not be overturned?

Besides me.

Lash Goth



That is an open ended question. What restrictions?

Yes, there should be restrictions. Unfortunately, there isn't a person on either side that would believe that the other side is compromising in good faith!

It's America's extremist politics haunting the process again!

I left it open on purpose. If anyone believed there should be restrictions, they could list them here. I didn't want to squew the responses.

edit-
Also looking for correct spelling of 'squew' (?).

You're right, BillW. But, we don't have to give in to that extremist politics. This is the problem that I have with the Abortion Agenda. 100% in either direction is wrong, IMO.

There is a humane policy. 100% in either direction is not it.

whatever restrictions are placed should be medical not political, there is an entire realm of "medical ethics" that deals with such issues.

One of the points often lost in the abortion discussion is that there generally ARE restrictions on abortions in the US. Roe v. Wade was not an open door that left abortions unrestricted as many like to play it off as. If you read Roe v. Wade the term of pregnancy was basically divided into 3 phases (trimesters) and the level of regulation permitted in each increases as the pregnancy advances.

37 of the 50 states have things like 24 hours waiting periods, mandatory state directed counseling and parental consent requirements for minors already on the books and upheld by the courts.

While a woman may have a right to chose that right ISN'T unlimited and it never has been. Those who see it as an unlimted right and those that claim there is a need for numerous additional restrictions need to look at and FAIRLY evaluate the facts of what actually IS there before they push anything one way or the other.

It's "screw" - no, wait a minute. That's what caused the problem to begin with.

"skew"

I agree, and I really don't want another abortion thread - my limits would exist in the third trimester, except rape, incest, deformaties etc. Plus some parental consent unless, child gets court permission because of parenting reasons. Fast court actions by a caring judge-no anti abortion judge allowed, ever - strick litmus test.

Something along those lines.

Psst! Try "skew"! lol

Lash Goth
Skew is the correct spelling.

I tend to see this in different terms. I think Bush will favor strict constructionists for the bench, whose rigid reading of the Constitution for original intent and belief in judicial restraint could lead them to overturn Roe v. Wade if a challenge thereto came up on their docket.


I don't think so. My guess is--assuming they are called to rule on it--that they will either leave it alone, preferring to leave in place a bad decision rather than stir up society by overturning it, or they may decide that a bad precedent should not stand and will overturn it completely. Of course, if they were to overturn Roe v. Wade, the entire issue would then revert to the states (where it belongs). It is there where those restrictions would come into play, with some states choosing more restrictions, and others fewer.

Well, the skew problem solved. If only abortion was so easy.

Agreed with BillW on many of his restrictions. Perfectly on parental consent. You take out a minor's tooth and you are in deep poo. Take out a baby, and its nobody's business. But, I do think there are cases of incest, which merit an individual approach. The only thing is: You know when you are raped or assaulted by your dad. The RU486 would negate the need for abortion.

I also think Partial Birth Abortion must go. I can't think of any case when this procedure should be used.

fishin--
Couldn't agree more with the need for both sides to evaluate the facts. At present, they can't. The numbers are not being reported, and this should be a requirement of those performing abortions, IMO.
And, I know from the sad histories of a few friends, if you want an abortion, you can get one, without your parents knowing.

Well, there are certianly some stastics that are hidden but there are plenty of other facts that are easy to find. You, I or anyone else can look up what laws DO exist right now on any of several on-line legal issues sites (I'm talking about sites like FindLaw, not the pro-choice or anti-abortion sites..). If people would start looking at what is out there that is fact they might find that what they've been arguing all along is already covered throughly in the legal realm.

That problem isn't unique to the Abortion debate either. I cringe every time I see or hear someone say "There ought to be a law...". In most cases there already IS a law!

Agreed, fishin. Yet since RvW became the law, more concentration and energy have been put towards expanding the right of abortion rather than contracting it. (i.e. "partial birth abortions", a term I happen to loathe)

Abortions were meant to be safe, legal and rare.

We need to start focusing on the frequency of abortions, and leave the safety and legality alone.

Lash is correct, this topic is difficult to discuss empirically because WE DON'T KNOW how many abortions are performed.

I don't want to mention any names, but the inability to discourse with those with whom we may be in disagreement with is extremely childish.

If participants of this site seek nothing more than an echo chamber, reverberating their own thoughts and opinions back at themselves, well, then, I guess you're in the wrong place.

Donchathink?

The flaw in Roe vs Wade is in its essence - the notion that the mother has a Constitutional right to privacy (and unlimited control) concerning the fate of the child in hew womb that transcends any consideration of protection for that life, or indeed for the interests of the father.

This at once took the states out of the matter, precluded any limits on abortion, and undeniably contributed yet another assault on the integrity of traditional familys on which we depend to raise our next generation. Because government is now so intimately involved in so many aspects of our lives, it also immediately put government and taxpayers in the position of not only tolerating abortion but also of actively promoting it through numerous government programs. This, more than any other factor, made a major political issue out of one that, until then, had not stirred such heated debate. The different practices of different states, each democratically arrived at through their legislatures, enabled us to get by a very thorny political and moral issue, while respecting regional differences and enabling people in desperate circumstances to have a way out.

The political lines are now severely drawn and there is likely to be no compromise. The advocates of unlimited access to abortion, without any constraint whatever to protect the interests of father and child, will brook no compromise - indeed the notional of a transcendent constitutional "right to privacy" in this matter itself precludes any compromise at all.

It is time for the Supreme Court to recognize its grievous error and throw out this unfortunate decision.

"This at once took the states out of the matter, precluded any limits on abortion,"
wrong wrong wrong--Please read Justice Blackmums written decsison re roe v wade..

dyslexia,

Can you name any significant state-imposed limitation on abortion - even, so called 'partial birth' procedures performed on viable infants close to full term - that have not been struck down by apellate courts based on Roe vs Wade ??