1
   

Let's Get Rid of Roe

 
 
blatham
 
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2005 05:53 am
Quote:
Welcome to no-choice America
PBS's "Frontline" special "The Last Abortion Clinic" shows us why the dark ages of illegal abortions and unwanted children are already here.

By Heather Havrilesky

Nov. 8, 2005 | Every month, I get letters in the mail from NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood and NOW telling me that abortion rights are being threatened and my $50 pledge is necessary to wage this important fight. Every year or so I read the letters and then write a check, but most months I throw all that paper into the recycling bin without scaring myself over the latest threat to choice. Hasn't Roe v. Wade been under attack for decades now? Regardless of the Roe foes Bush packs onto the Supreme Court, a return to the dark ages of underground abortions has always seemed -- despite all the reports to the contrary -- too fantastical to warrant a constant state of fear.

PBS's "The Last Abortion Clinic" (9 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 8; check listings) shook me out of my stupor. As this "Frontline" special clearly and carefully explains, whether or not Roe v. Wade is repealed, the antiabortion agenda in many states has already made it nearly impossible for a poor woman to get an abortion.

Naturally, we're introduced to the usual roundup of dewy-eyed antiabortion idealists armed with melodrama and scare tactics, and treated to disturbing footage of women standing outside an abortion clinic shouting, "I love you, Mama! Please let me live!"

But then the program digs into the legal history of abortion, from Roe v. Wade to Casey to Ayotte, without which it's impossible to understand the insidious battle that's being fought on the state level. Working strategically within the boundaries of the law, antiabortion activists have managed, in many states, to restrict abortions and abortion clinics so aggressively that abortion-rights activists say that conditions are as bad as they were before Roe v. Wade passed in 1973.

In Mississippi, the antiabortion movement has managed to close down all but one abortion clinic. And by requiring women to go to the clinic twice, once for information and counseling, and a second time for the procedure, which must take place at least 24 hours later, women who drive from other locations in the state have to make two trips or spend the night in town. For women who can't afford the money or time off from work, these obstacles are likely to seal their fates.

"We don't feel bad that people in the delta can't have an abortion," says Terri Herring, president of Pro-Life Mississippi. "To say that we want to be sure that poor women can get their abortions, like we're doing them a favor by helping them kill their baby, is just not OK with me."

But do the sentiments of one antiabortion activist say anything about the position of state officials? Apparently so: Mississippi actually sells license plates that say "Choose Life" on them, with all proceeds going to Crisis Pregnancy Centers. What can women get at these centers, 2,000 of which exist nationwide? Free pregnancy tests, confidential counseling, free ultrasounds so the women can see their unborn children, and free baby clothes. What can't they get? Free birth control or birth control counseling, information on where to get an abortion, or free prenatal care.

"The purpose of the center is to deal with the woman who has an unplanned pregnancy, and her choices are abortion, adoption, parenting. She has basically those three choices," says a representative of one center. Of course, if the woman "chooses" abortion -- or even wants to consider a way to not get pregnant the next time -- she's out of luck.

That doesn't stop antiabortion activists from claiming that they're interested in helping these mothers and their babies. Just so we understand where all of these very compassionate people are leading Mississippi, we visit a town called Clarksdale, where 75 percent of babies are born to single mothers, many of whom are teenagers, and more than one-third of the population lives in poverty. When the "Frontline" producers ask a young mother about access to abortion, she has a look on her face as if he just asked, "Have you ever thought of summering in the South of France instead?"

For those who are foolish enough, as I was, to believe not only that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned but also that things will be fine as long as that doesn't happen, "The Last Abortion Clinic" offers a sobering look at the reality in most states, where local governments seem to care very little about the impossible circumstances poor women face in dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

But no one has a firmer grasp on just how bad it is for these women than the head of an abortion clinic in a neighboring state, whose identity is withheld for her safety and the safety of her clinic. "Sometimes I fantasize about Roe being overturned, because then I think that there would be this real threat, this real enemy," she says. "As long as everything flies below the radar, never an all-out attack, I think that most women and men are asleep. I don't think they realize what's going on. The assault on abortion rights is very clever. It's very smart. And we're losing."




http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/review/2005/11/08/last_abortion/index.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,920 • Replies: 117
No top replies

 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 05:54 am
Quote:
Rep. Davis Warns of Backlash if Roe v. Wade Is Overturned

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 17, 2005; Page A08

Reversal of the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide could produce an upheaval in U.S. politics and would put candidates who oppose abortion rights at risk of defeat in many parts of the country, a leading House Republican said yesterday.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the Government Reform Committee, said the desire of GOP conservatives to see a newly constituted Supreme Court eventually overturn Roe v. Wade could produce a political backlash, particularly in the suburbs. "It would be a sea change in suburban voting patterns," Davis said at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
More
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 07:09 am
Re: Let's Get Rid of Roe
blatham wrote:
Quote:


But then the program digs into the legal history of abortion, from Roe v. Wade to Casey to Ayotte, without which it's impossible to understand the insidious battle that's being fought on the state level. Working strategically within the boundaries of the law, antiabortion activists have managed, in many states, to restrict abortions and abortion clinics so aggressively that abortion-rights activists say that conditions are as bad as they were before Roe v. Wade passed in 1973.


http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/review/2005/11/08/last_abortion/index.html


Oh MY! It's TERRIBLE!
Citizens of a state working within the bounds of the state's framework of law to change the law to reflect the 'will of the people'.
My GOD, it's almost... Constitutional.
I guess the Founding Fathers would have been appalled at 'We the People' using the power that was granted to them by the original 'non living breathing document' to make changes to their states law to reflect the standards and attitudes of that particular community.

Who do these people think they are! It's almost like they are acting like ... Americans.

The nerve of some people.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 07:47 am
Fedral wrote:
Quote:
Oh MY! It's TERRIBLE!
Citizens of a state working within the bounds of the state's framework of law to change the law to reflect the 'will of the people'.


..."to reflect the will of the people"?

Which people? How do you determine their 'will'? Are we free of all concern that activists of any sort or motivated by any ideology might move to alter or create laws which are not actually held by a majority?

Then you still have the dilemma of whether or not the majority's will ought to trump all else, including the Constitution.

But the question I'm looking at here is who actually wishes Roe to fall?
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 07:53 am
blatham wrote:
Fedral wrote:
Quote:
Oh MY! It's TERRIBLE!
Citizens of a state working within the bounds of the state's framework of law to change the law to reflect the 'will of the people'.


..."to reflect the will of the people"?

Which people? How do you determine their 'will'? Are we free of all concern that activists of any sort or motivated by any ideology might move to alter or create laws which are not actually held by a majority?

Then you still have the dilemma of whether or not the majority's will ought to trump all else, including the Constitution.

But the question I'm looking at here is who actually wishes Roe to fall?


I believe that Roe was a mistake in the first place.

Although I believe that a woman should have access to an abortion, I also believe in each states rights to decide what restrictions to place on them based upon the collective will of the people of that state.

That simple.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 08:12 am
Any consideration as to whether a successful campaign to drop Roe would have a positive or negative consequence for the Republican Party or for the conservative movement?
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 08:13 am
Of course the right has been using Roe as a wedge issue for over twenty years. But I don't think it is right to ask women to carry the political football of giving up rights in order to egt them back.

I have watched that frontline program twice, it is shocking what they are doing to those poor young women in Mississippi, forcing all those unwanted children ito the world then abdicating their responsiblity once the fetus becomes a born person.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 08:15 am
blatham wrote:
Any consideration as to whether a successful campaign to drop Roe would have a positive or negative consequence for the Republican Party or for the conservative movement?


It would devastate the Republican Party.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 08:17 am
Fedral wrote:
blatham wrote:
Fedral wrote:
Quote:
Oh MY! It's TERRIBLE!
Citizens of a state working within the bounds of the state's framework of law to change the law to reflect the 'will of the people'.


..."to reflect the will of the people"?

Which people? How do you determine their 'will'? Are we free of all concern that activists of any sort or motivated by any ideology might move to alter or create laws which are not actually held by a majority?

Then you still have the dilemma of whether or not the majority's will ought to trump all else, including the Constitution.

But the question I'm looking at here is who actually wishes Roe to fall?


I believe that Roe was a mistake in the first place.

Although I believe that a woman should have access to an abortion, I also believe in each states rights to decide what restrictions to place on them based upon the collective will of the people of that state.

That simple.


Simple but wrong.

Inherent rights are not granted by the collective will of the people.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 08:19 am
Based on Fedral's warped sense of the Constitution and inalienable rights, could South Carolina re-institute Jim Crow laws based on the "collective will of the people?"
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 10:59 am
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:

Simple but wrong.

Inherent rights are not granted by the collective will of the people.


So you would have your reproductive rights decided upon by 9 unelected black robes speaking from their marble palace?
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 11:13 am
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:
Based on Fedral's warped sense of the Constitution and inalienable rights, could South Carolina re-institute Jim Crow laws based on the "collective will of the people?"


Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article XV.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Article [XIX].
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXIV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



I think the 'Will of the People' through their elected representatives is quite clear and since they are Amendments to the Constitution, they are the law of the land. That takes care of 'Jim Crow' coming back.

If you think there is an Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing a womans right to an abortion, please link me a copy, I'd be quite interested.

As I said before, I believe that abortion should be legal and available. I also believe that it is every states right to decide for itself as to what restrictions to place upon them.

Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Source: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 01:08 pm
Fedral wrote:
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:

Simple but wrong.

Inherent rights are not granted by the collective will of the people.


So you would have your reproductive rights decided upon by 9 unelected black robes speaking from their marble palace?


So you would have your speech rights decided by elected officials (in their marble palaces)?
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 03:04 pm
blatham wrote:
Fedral wrote:
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:

Simple but wrong.

Inherent rights are not granted by the collective will of the people.


So you would have your reproductive rights decided upon by 9 unelected black robes speaking from their marble palace?


So you would have your speech rights decided by elected officials (in their marble palaces)?


If the elected officials start passing laws that I have problems with, I can vote their a$$es out of office.
Judges who legislate from the bench are not answerable to the people.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 04:03 pm
And what is your understanding of the reasons that your founders made the SC appointments for life?
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 04:22 pm
blatham wrote:
And what is your understanding of the reasons that your founders made the SC appointments for life?


Because the original intent of the Founding Fathers was for the Judicial Branch to only decide of the Constitutionality or unConstitutionality of cases brought before them.

NOT TO LEGISLATE THEIR OWN AGENDAS.

The Founding Fathers were terrified of a Judicial Branch run amok.

Try reading some of Jefferson's commentaries on the subject.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 04:24 pm
The founders were also terrified of an executive run amok.

But you avoided the question.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 04:52 pm
blatham wrote:
The founders were also terrified of an executive run amok.

But you avoided the question.


Sorry, I thought I had answered it, can you clarify exactly what you meant please ???
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 04:59 pm
What is your understanding of why the political representatives are elected for temporary periods but that the SC appointees are allowed a lifetime tenure?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 05:37 pm
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:
Based on Fedral's warped sense of the Constitution and inalienable rights, could South Carolina re-institute Jim Crow laws based on the "collective will of the people?"


So then based on your own warped sense of the Constitution do you beleive Lawrance v. Texas should be over turned and Boewrs should be put back into effect??
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Let's Get Rid of Roe
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/30/2024 at 12:42:33