Are you in favor 0f Roe v Wade being upheld or overturned?

59% of Americans want the next Supreme Court justice to uphold Roe, while 3 in 10 want it overturned.

But since Bush won with a crushing, massive, ass-whupping blowout eternal reign mandate of 51%, and the Moral Majority must be served...

...he really doesn't give a damn.

Steppenwolf, you are right about the legal issues involved. But I think it likely that most states will in fact make abortion illegal.

Since R v W the federal government has refused to allow any federal funds to be spent on abortions. With all of the violence at abortion clinics a few years back, many abortion clinics closed down. States, in regulating abortion, have made it increasingly difficult for a woman to choose one; for example, the 24-hour waiting period and mandatory looking over Right to Life info that the SC okayed in _Casey_ makes it difficult for a women who has to travel to a distant city in order to find an abortion clinic (and many woman can't afford the abortion if they have to lose work hours). In other words, it is often hard enough for the working poor to get an abortion now--and if R v W is overturned it will become even harder.

Besides, I consider this a rights issue (believing that the rights of an actual person trump those of a potential person). From this perspective, it really doesn't matter what the majority want.

JanW, notwithstanding your perspective on the majority, your post looks like a solid argument for legislation protecting the right to abortion. Without taking a stance on the policy aspect, I'll only say that Roe is a judicial issue, and it must be dealt with as such.

The "right to privacy" on which the Roe and its progeny stand is an ill fit for abortion, and that general right skirts the boundaries of reasonable interpretation in and of itself. Whether or not the right to privacy (liberty?) of an actual person trumps the rights of a potential person (to life?) is a question ripe for deliberation, but the conclusion to that question cannot be easily found in the Constitution without torturing that document. I would hand this question to the people, even if they might answer it in a way that I find unacceptable. Such is the nature of a democracy. But until this becomes a legislative issue (that is, before Roe is overruled), this is a judicial issue, and I therefore agree that it shouldn't be under the control of the majority (for now).

ROME In a recent poll, only 32 percent of Italians surveyed said it was right for religion to have an influence on the laws of the state. Yet crucifixes hang in public schools..
Abortion is legal here and not much debated anymore. Yet religious sentiment runs deep enough that Friday night comes in Italy with the adventures of Don Matteo, the handsome crime-solving priest. One study showed that 27 percent of all protagonists on public television were priests, nuns or saints (though it is also hard to ignore the other large percentage on Italian television: near-naked women)..
All this might sound like fertile ground for a war of culture and values like the one raging in America, where there is both hope and fear that religion will play a larger public role in the second administration of President George W. Bush. .
But in Italy, the European nation where religion and state have mingled most, and where the lines are most blurred, the disagreements are somehow less bitter and absolute than in the United States..
"There is much more collaboration - a, let us say, reasonable attitude," said a Vatican official, an American. "Not such rigidity as we have in the United States. In the United States we find that rigidity on both sides, both the conservatives and the liberals, and it's hard for people to talk to each other." .
It is not that the debate over religion's influence in political life has ended here, nor that Italy is exempt from a counterpoint argued angrily these days in Europe: Whether the Continent has become so secular that it is now outright hostile to religion. It may be more accurate to say that the debate over church and state has not stopped for 1,700 years in this nation with a public Christian heritage stretching back to Emperor Constantine's conversion in 313 and where a neighborhood in Rome is its own country and seat of the Roman Catholic Church..
Those years seem to have lent enough time and hard experience for church and state to settle into an almost indistinct whole, where the very real secularization in Italy in the last few decades is balanced by its history, culture, architecture and, even though church attendance has declined significantly, faith..
Paul Ginsborg, a prominent historian of Italy, describes the overall atmosphere, in Italian, as "la religione diffusa" - the religion of everyone or, in his loose translation, "It's in the air.".
And so, Italy is a land of contrasts, which cultural warriors on either side of the American divide would have trouble fitting into recognizable mental boxes: Perhaps the most Catholic politician in Italy is not a conservative, as might be expected in America, but Romano Prodi, the former European Union chief and leader of the center-left..
Italians routinely ignore the conservative Pope John Paul II in matters of private morality, like contraception, divorce or marriage (far fewer Italians are marrying, in the church or out), but admire him deeply for his stands on issues like caring for the poor or his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq..
Crucifixes may hang in public schools, but they hang without the heavy political overtones that come with displays of, say, the Ten Commandments in public places in America..
"Even with such symbolism, you can't say the Catholic church is shoved down people's throats in 2004," Ginsborg said..
In 1946 Pope Pius XII said, "For more than 15 centuries the Italian people have remained faithful to this order of belief, which appeared to them entirely normal and unquestioned." But by then, the decline of the church's influence was well under way..
The splintering a decade ago of the Christian Democratic Party, often seen as a main route for the church's influence, along with Europe's deepening secularization, helped make Italy more like other European nations. Despite the teachings of the church against contraception, Italy has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe. Divorce and abortion became legal in the 1970s despite strong opposition from the church..
But, unlike the United States, abortion has not continued to seriously divide Italy's politics or its people - perhaps the key example for the more civil tone of the debate over religion and state here. Here, it seems less an argument than a very long conversation..
"I don't think the situation is so bad," said Rocco Buttiglione, an Italian governmental minister, a devout Catholic and a friend of the pope who has become something of a lightning rod on the issue of religion in Europe. "I think we can talk." .
The Vatican and conservative politicians like Buttiglione lament the decline of values and religion, some wondering whether Italy and Europe have lost touch with their Christian roots at a time when, as some see it, the West is facing a deep challenge from Islam. Buttiglione was rejected last month for a top post in the EU for his opinions - private, he says, and thus distinct from any public duties - that homosexuality is a sin and that women would be better off married and at home..
But many of his general views, to American ears, can sound almost liberal. In an interview, he spoke of the complexities of the abortion debate, how even unwavering anti-abortionists like himself need to understand the difficulties of asserting the rights of a fetus against those of its mother. .
"I have one rule, the rule of liberal society, which is the rule of freedom," he said. "I respect your freedom and you respect mine. Within this, we can talk.".
On the more secular left, many leaders bemoan the lingering influence of the church among politicians, who they say pander to the Vatican, killing a bill earlier this year to shorten the time for divorce and pushing through what many on the left say is a too restrictive law on medically assisted conception..
But many leftist politicians have strong ties to the church, too. Even more secular ones find allies in the church on issues like helping the poor and immigrants to Italy, even when they disagree on issues like abortion or contraception..

most of the heavy anti-abortion folks i've met, talked, or, in some cases, typed with, are pretty darn conservative. you know, less government. unintrusive government. because government telling people what do with their lives is bad.

i'm sure that if asked, they would tell you how awful it is that the chinese government intrudes into the lives of their citizens and determines just how many, if any, children they should have.

yet they fail to apply the same standard to that topic right here in the good ol' usa.

Actually, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade does not prevent States from enacting legislation to regulate abortion. Blackmun for the majority took into consideration of the State's interest in preserving the potential life of the unborn. The decision balanced that right of government against the individual's liberty to make their own decisions during the first trimester after conception. Roe v. Wade, in my opinion, was sound and still reflects public attitudes on the issue.

The Supreme Court is not the creature of the Executive Branch, nor of popular opinion. It is, as it was designed to be, independent. Decisions are reflective of the informed opinions of the Justices who owe nothing to anyone, but their duty to the Constitution. They serve for long periods and as a rule are very conservative in their interpretation of the Constitution. Presidents and the Public are often impatient and angry with the Court's decisions. Ultimately, Supreme Court decisions do reflect the changing attitudes and circumstances of the nation ... its just that sometimes a decade or more will elapse before radical changes appear.

Roe v. Wade is still relatively new, and I don't expect that it will be reversed in any major way during the next 4-8 years. If anything, I think that the arguments for more restrictive abortion laws are even less persuasive today than they were when Roe v. Wade was handed down.

BTW, I believe it is a mistake to hold that conservatives generally favor overturning Roe v. Wade. I know some pretty radical folks who are "Pro-Life", and some more conservative than I am who are also "Pro-Choice" ... within the guidelines of Roe v. Wade. Leftish partisans for "Pro-Choice" are probably about as common as rightish partisans are for "Pro-Life", both represent only a small portion of the electorate. Unfortunately, few on either the Right or Left will take the time to actually read Roe v. Wade. It is much easier to adopt a position based on emotion and PC than to listen to the dicta of the Court.

Even in the unlikely chance that R v W is overturned, States would immediately jump in and create similiar legislation. How many States would NOT do this?

I happen to think there would be quite a few that would do this. If given the choice, states would rule in favor of morality instead of mortality.

morality as defined by who, baldi. i'm curious.

But their views of the size of government notwithstanding, usually staunch conservatives find murder to be a bad thing, and feel laws preventing such behavior are appropriate, right? And don't you see a distinction between a law that says "Thou shall have no children," and one that says, "Thou shall be free to kill your children to your hearts desire"?

I see a distinction. "Thou shall have no children" in China means "thou shalt be forced to kill your children".

"Thou shall be free to kill your children to your hearts desire" is not a law anywhere that I know of. Here's one though, how about "thou shall be free to choose for yourself and your family how many children you will have because you alone know what the effect of bringing a child into this world would be on said family."

It's currently the law of the land in this country.

Morality should be defined by the majority. Most people here in the US have the same moral codes. When it comes to the more controversial moral the majority should define them.

Only as long as you have a good enough attorney to get you off on a mental condition.

What Baldi said.

Not if you believe life begins at conception. What famous junior senator from Massachusetts said he firmly believes that life begins at conception?

I didn't express what I meant clearly. Let me try again, while touching on other aspects of your message.

USSC: I agree that the "right to privacy" is judicial activism, but I am not opposed to that in and of itself. What is protected is the "liberty" (14th, with, as you noted, sometimes appeals to a geneal penumbra) to make certain personal decisions that involve controversial issues about life and its value. From Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992): these decisions "involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to a person's dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." In my opinion this is as good an example of judicial activism as any other and is far better than most (such as designating corporations as "persons").

And, of course, I agree that as long as this is a judicial issue that it is not open to the rule of the majority (i.e., legislation).

However, if Roe v Wade were overturned, the states would then be free to legislate regarding abortion as they see fit. And I think that anti-abortionists ought to be very careful in wanting to make abortion illegal, for the day may well come when the majority of people want to make abortion (in at least some cases) legally required.

It seems to me that the choice is really between an individual's having freedom of choice regarding such decisions and an individual's having to bow to the will of the majority. It might not be long before the majority wants to require some abortions. I myself think that carrying some pregnancies to term is immoral; this being the case, I have to decide whether to try to convince people that this is a morally correct position or whether to work for legislation forcing some abortions. (Those are not mutually exclusive, of course, but when it comes to the bottom line they might be.)

Observations such as this MIGHT encourage those who believe that abortion should be illegal to rethink that position.

Even if you believe that, it's a stretch to call aborting a fetus and murdering your children to your hearts desire.

it is very telling that the wording for your "argument law" begins with "thou". i could be mistaken, but from the law texts that i have read, they don't use the word "thou". now perhaps some very early ones do. i don't know. but that is more a case of the bible being translated into english during a long period when that was common vernacular.

i don't like the idea that the chinese government tells people that they may not have a child, under any circumstance. none of the government's business.

you see the right for a woman to self determine a pregnancy as being "free to murder your children to your heart's content".

but i, and many others, see the anti-abortion stance as a woman or a couple being told that "you will have this child, under any and all circumstances".

once again, none of the government's business. nor frankly, is it the neighbor's affair either.