Is Roe v. Wade really in danger?

Before you begin reading this, I want to qualify that I believe abortion is murder and no civilized society should accept it.  I also believe that the woman made her "choice" when she chose to engage in an activity that had the possible outcome of a HUMAN child.  I tried to be objective about what will really happen, but please forgive any personal opinions that creep in to my commentary.

 

The left is making this supreme court nomination all about destroying “women’s rights” and “reproductive rights” so let us visit the reality, shall we?  There is a lot more that the Supreme Court deals with.  Abortion is almost none of that.

Norma McCorvey was the original complainant in Roe v. Wade.  She was Roe (they used alias Jane Roe).  Later in life, she became very anti-abortion and felt she had been used by the left to create this decision.  Planned Parenthood had actually been forcing cases for years to finally get a case before a Supreme court they felt would rule in their favor.  She passed away in 2017.

The left is fear-mongering saying that “women’s reproductive rights will go away” with this nomination, or even more absurdly “millions will die” – as if abortion hasn’t killed millions, already, right?  Almost 60 million, predominantly African Americans since 1973.

What really happens if Kavenaugh is confirmed?  Believe it or not, the Supreme Court doesn’t just randomly change laws!  Say it ain’t so!

A case has to work through the system that would be negative to Roe v. Wade.  That would likely take years.  After that, if it is appealed to the Supreme Court, at least 4 justices have to agree to hear it.  They hear about a total of 80 cases a year, out of thousands. 

Kavenaugh doesn’t seem like someone that would vote to take on that kind of case, but that is personal opinion and not particularly relevant, just worth noting.

Even should they hear a case that could potentially reverse Roe v. Wade what happens?

It would simply be an act of federalism (small f).  It would mean the federal government is not requiring every state to provide abortion.  It would revert the decision to each state.

Does anyone thing CA, NY, others will suddenly change their abortion laws?  However, it will allow states that believe abortion is immoral/murder to say, you have to go somewhere else to do that, we don’t agree with that philosophy.

As the founders intended, each state would be a cauldron of democracy, each choosing their own path.

This leftist hyper-sensationalism of what this pick will mean cannot be spread enough as to what it really means.  Even if they take a case, and even if they reverse Roe v. Wade, this doesn’t suddenly mean that abortion is going to be forbidden and illegal.  I doubt that Kavenaugh will be the type of person that would agree to hear the case, next choice, Barrett certainly will, but the hysteria for now is just that.  Leftists ginning up election year voters to come out and vote democrat to stop this “anti-woman” agenda.

 

Comments

opher goodwin Added Jul 11, 2018 - 4:53am
It is a woman's right to choose. 
I thought America stood for freedom? Or is it the imposition of one person's morality on others?
Time everybody stood up and fought for a person's rights and freedoms.
If we followed your logic on embryos we'd be saving every single sperm and egg. They are all alive. They could all become adult human beings.
James Travil Added Jul 11, 2018 - 8:56am
Welcome to the Handmaid's Tale (if these fundys get their way). 
Ken King Added Jul 11, 2018 - 10:39am
Believe it or not, the woman had the right to choose.  She chose the act that had the potential responsibility of creating another life.  She chose to engage in it, so she has to bear the responsibility for the consequences that may occur.  That was her choice.
 
The constitution gives the right to life for you AND your progeny.  The founders understood abortion and they considered it illegal even then, it was illegal once the "spark of divinity" was determined - once you knew and could feel there was a child in the womb.
Mustafa Kemal Added Jul 11, 2018 - 12:42pm
Oh yeah, listening to Christian radio, you can bet on it.
Leroy Added Jul 11, 2018 - 2:07pm
"It is a woman's right to choose. 
I thought America stood for freedom? Or is it the imposition of one person's morality on others?"
 
It's a fetus's right to live versus a woman's and her husband's right to choose.  The right to life is greater than a right to choose.  It is fundamental.  It is not about morality.  Freedom is for everyone.  It is a ridiculous notion that a fetus only deserves protection once he pokes his head out.  If he hasn't poked his head out, it is ok to take his life.  Absurd.
 
I differ in opinion with the author.  It is not unreasonable to give a woman time to choose, say up to the point to where the baby could reasonably survive outside the womb, or a limit such as the first trimester.  It is still repugnant to me, but it is a reasonable compromise.
 
Those who believe in no limits on abortion believe in murder.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jul 11, 2018 - 2:26pm
Abortion is murder and the liberals love that as some sacred sacrament or a Rite  of Passage.
 
Vacate Roe and Griswold.
Ken Added Jul 11, 2018 - 2:32pm
dehumanizing a baby by calling it a "fetus" is simply an excuse for murder.  It is a human child.  However, if you read the article I wrote, it isn't about whether abortion should be legal or not, it is about the hysteria being ginned up by the left over what is actually a non-issue
Jeff Michka Added Jul 11, 2018 - 7:27pm
Oh, geezus, Now we are hearing the usual rightist drumbeat about how life begins before the last drink at dinner on the "night."  And it's still a "moral failing" if a woman has sex, because the rightists really don't care about abortion, they just don't want people to fuck for THEIR religious reason and in their definitions only.  At the same time they cry about abortion, if a woman has a child she can't support, will they step in?  No.  Since that's interfering with the woman's "responsibility.  We've had to many Xtain followers here recently doing the "shame, shame,shame" thing.  Same old bilge.  And banning abortion isn't going to get the "good white people" out of their racial nosedive.  "Oh, if we only ban abortion, we'll have more white babies to save us."  Really? 
Ken Added Jul 11, 2018 - 8:04pm
@Jeff - a whole lot of tripe in your response.  Where did I ever say it was a moral failing or anything at all religious?
 
I never said people shouldn't be together, I simply said if they choose to be, then they have the responsibility for the potential consequences - a new life - of that activity.
 
People who don't believe in murdering innocent children step in to help all the time.    There are huge amounts of people trying to adopt, on waiting list to adopt, etc.
 
Then, you illogically have to pull out the race card.  When you have no facts to argue, you pull the race card, eh?  I don't recall referencing that either or even implying that.  In fact, the facts are that if abortion were banned, there would be more non-white people as the bulk of abortions are black children.  over 50% of back babies in NYC alone are aborted.  Margaret Sanger was a racist and a Eugenicist and the entire foundation of Planned Parenthood was built on "Whitening" America.  that is why the majority of PP clinics are in predominantly minority areas.
 
On top of all that, the original post wasn't even about banning abortion.  It was about how the left shouting that abortion will be banned is an entirely false argument even if Roe v Wade were struck down.
Jeff Michka Added Jul 11, 2018 - 9:26pm
I'm sure the women of America will be soothed and will stand down, given you "assurances," Kenny.  So is it Ken King or just Ken?  And I don't care if Margaret Sanger gave Adolf Hitler oral sex, but you Trumpists are all upset about "good white people" becoming a minority.  Do understand, I don't care if they become a minority.  So?  And your trying to put this into "you're wrong about what I said," is cheap sophistry.   And why should anyone believe that abortion won't be attacked by a rightist Supremes?  'Cause the clown says he won't? But, oh yeah, Roe is in danger. That was the "fantasy" Xtains used to put their "moral repugnance aside" and vote for Trump "he'll get us a court WE want."  And please also save me the crocodile tears over black babies.  But those "good white people" should worry that losing Roe won't boost whitey numbers, to the contrary as you note.  Onward with the "browning of America!"  Just spraying yourselves orange won't cut it.
Bill H. Added Jul 11, 2018 - 11:09pm
If humans don't tackle the population issue soon, it really won't matter because it will be our demise.
I am in no way a fan of abortion, but we need to start giving the overpopulation issue serious thought. We have found ways to avoid and deny the evolutionary correction factors, so we just keep reproducing with no regard or concerns for the future.
I guess we deserve what we get.
Ken Added Jul 12, 2018 - 12:27am
Jeff, clearly you don't understand basic civics.  You also don't know anything about me.  I am not a  Trumpist.  Also, you clearly came here to spout your ideology and either didn't comprehend or didn't take the time to even read what I wrote.  The entire point of what I wrote is that even if Roe v. Wade were struck down - which is extremely unlikely with the current court, even with Kavenaugh on it, that wouldn't impact abortion in many places.  It would simply make it a state by state decision rather than a national decision as to whether it should be legal or not.  It will not do anything more than that. 
 
On top of that, even if the court was of a mind to try and strike down Roe v. Wade, an appropriate case has to come before the court, at least 4 justices have to decide for the court to take it up (they take up about 80 per year out of about 6000), then a majority has to vote to strike it down.  Even after that, that still only reverts the decision back to the strake no longer making abortion a national mandate.
Ken Added Jul 12, 2018 - 12:29am
Bill - what overpopulation?  we have less hungry people in the world today than any other time in history.  You could take every single person in the world standing all 7+ billion shoulder to shoulder and they would fit on the island of Maui.  technology continues to increase food production capacity which further increases sustainability.  "Overpopulation" is simply fiction
Flying Junior Added Jul 12, 2018 - 2:31am
I guess it's mostly women who are in danger.
Dino Manalis Added Jul 12, 2018 - 8:53am
 It's called abortion, because life is aborted.  It's a personal moral decision and nobody else's business, but people have to be brought up with morals and values to appreciate life.  I don't think abortion is in danger in the Supreme Court, but conservatives around the country will try to implement state laws that restrict the availability of abortions.
Ken Added Jul 12, 2018 - 12:01pm
Who gets to speak for the innocent child who is being murdered?  Doesn't he or she have a right to life?  The constitution says they do.  Even the left legal scholars  admit Roe v. Wade was a poorly reasoned decision and was not based on the constitution at all.  Aren't one of the key moral fundamentals in a free and independent society to defend the defenseless?
Jeff Michka Added Jul 12, 2018 - 12:24pm
Got any cites for your rightist claims about "legal left scholars."  No I read you loud and clear, Ken.  Sorry you lost your crown.  So you are just another cheap, rightist delete.  Wow, don't see that evryday.  Now I need to go out and collect money for shop vacs for planned parenthood.  The money I get from George Soros only goes so far.  I'll have to ask George for a raise.
Bill Kamps Added Jul 12, 2018 - 3:00pm
Ken, what irritates me is when people in Congress complain that the SCOTUS will decide on abortion, or decide on Obamacare, etc. 
 
The REASON that SCOTUS has to decide these things, is because the Congress is failing to act.  Congress could pass a law that says under what circumstances, if any, an abortion is legal.  Obama had 60 Democratic Senators, and a majority in the House.  They couldnt even come up with a health care bill that was without question constitutional.  They couldnt do DACA so they had to do it as an executive order.  They couldnt do something on immigration, so Obama practiced "catch and release".  What did they think the next GOP President was going to do?
 
As it is now, we have to see what kind of case will be brought to SCOTUS, and what the decision, if any, will imply.  This is a very sloppy and risky way to create law. 
 
While personally I would prefer abortions did not happen, I am not ready to make them against the law, because making that law does not stop them, in fact it creates a situation of less control, much like making drugs or alcohol  illegal makes their use criminal and more dangerous not less dangerous.  If it is illegal to have an abortion under any circumstances it is more likely we will have late term abortions, than if only early term abortions are legal.  At least then there is a legal available  option if used  early enough.
 
I also am not ready  to tell women, in every circumstance what they can or cant do with their body.  To say that a fetus at 2 months pregnancy has the protection of the state, I think is going too far.  To say it at 6 months, is different, IMO.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jul 12, 2018 - 3:16pm
Bill Kamps
 
"The REASON that SCOTUS has to decide these things, is because the Congress is failing to act. "
 
Very true for decades now. 
 
"As it is now, we have to see what kind of case will be brought to SCOTUS, and what the decision, if any, will imply.  This is a very sloppy and risky way to create law. "
 
Maybe the extreme right can now have a chance at activism for their causes. Turnabout and revenge are fair play. 
Ken Added Jul 12, 2018 - 3:26pm
The "far right" are actually the centrists.  Anyone who wants to follow the constitution is suddenly an extremist in the progressive language (and since they own the media and hollywood, and academia, they make the language).  The "far right" doesn't want activist judges, we simply believe we are a nation of laws, not a nation of people.  no one is above the law and the laws should be applied equally.  This goes all the way back to the original law, the Constitution and the framework for the constitution, the declaration of independence.
 
If people think the constitution is out of date, then change it.  Don't ignore it.  as long as it is the law, everyone is subject to that law.  If you don't agree with that law, change it.  There are multiple ways to amend the constitution, it has happened 27 times.
Bill Kamps Added Jul 12, 2018 - 3:54pm
Maybe the extreme right can now have a chance at activism for their causes. Turnabout and revenge are fair play. 
 
For either side, allowing the court to make the law is risky.  One doesnt know the cases that will brought before the  court, and one doesnt know how the results of those cases will be interpreted by lower courts.  Sometimes the  SCOTUS rules very narrowly, and sometimes very broadly.
 
We also dont know how all of the justices will vote.  Maybe we know how the recent appointment will vote, but Roberts is sometimes a moderate, and may side with precedent, we just dont know.
 
Ken, we dont need to amend the Constitution to have health care legislation, immigration legislation, or even abortion legislation.  Of course it is possible to create laws that are unconstitutional, but within the current Constitution all of these issues could be addressed within quite a range of possibilities. 
 
However, you are also correct, that if it is not possible to get the laws some political party wants, they can amend the Constitution.  It is difficult by not impossible.  It should not be easy. 
 
Leaving it to the court is just lazy. 
Ken Added Jul 12, 2018 - 4:53pm
I was not implying that the constitution needed to be amended to pass quite a bit of legislation, what I was stating is that the constitution cannot be ignored as if it doesn't exist to create legislation that is certain to be unconstitutional.  In fact, the left frequently does this when they control the courts to get the courts to be activist and declare constitutional by ideology something that actually isn't.
 
Perfect examples are something the supreme court should never do - rule on social issues.  Mandating obortion legal nationwide, mandating gay marriage nationwide, mandating health care nationwide, are 3 egregious examples.  the federalism (small f) that we are supposed to be aligned with makes that a state by state decision, not a national decision.
Bill Kamps Added Jul 12, 2018 - 5:11pm
Ken, first I wasnt disagreeing with you, I only mentioned your name to indicate a reference to what you wrote.
 
Whether abortion, health care, gay marriage could be legislated at the national level, is open for debate depending on the law itself. Certainly health care in the form of Medicaid has been legislated, and some form of Obamacare probably could have been constitutionally legislated if the law were written better. 
 
Lots of things are legislated that are not mentioned in the Constitution.  The laws can be challenged in the courts or not.  That is the way it is SUPPOSED to work.  Instead Congress ignores the law, and people take cases before the court to try to get what they cant get from Congress. 
 
That is what is happening with immigration now.  The courts are deciding what can be done on the border, because the laws give ICE limited options to do its job, and we stopped doing "catch and release" which was Obama's way to "solve" the problem.
 
 
Ken Added Jul 12, 2018 - 5:54pm
actually, medicaid, medicare, social security have never been tested for constitutionality in that way.  In a non-activist constitutional court, I doubt seriously they would hold constitutional as they not only violate the commerce clause, but they are not in an area constitutionally mandated as being under the auspice of the federal government.  That would be an entirely different discussion however, and I would have to research that better to present specific facts on why I believe that.  that is just my gut from the base of knowledge I have.  I don't like to go out on a limb unless I have facts I am certain of unless I clearly state "this is opinion"
opher goodwin Added Jul 12, 2018 - 6:53pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzVHjg3AqIQ
Pardero Added Jul 12, 2018 - 7:46pm
Ken,
I agree with you in theory 100%.
I have to go along with Leroy and Bill Kamps, however. Someday, I hope that we can wean society completely off abortion-as-contraception, and get them on real contraception in the first place.
 
I disagree with you on population growth. I have heard those spectacular comparisons before, and they do NOT hold up to scrutiny.
Bill H. is absolutely correct. Usually, people with fundamentalist backgrounds repeat the 'will all fit into (wherever).'
 
We have lost much topsoil. World wide. Increasing use of carcinogenic and mutagenic pesticides are nearly mandatory to maintain production levels. Marginal land has been put into production, that is far less resilient to stress, resulting in increased erosion, not to mention decades to return to a natural healthy state, if ever, because of the proliferation of spotted knapweed, dalmation toadflax, and other noxious weeds.
 
If not for North African nitrates, we would be in a historic world wide famine. We are now highly dependent on them, and cannot return to crop rotation or fallow, without immense pain.
 
Agriculture has been described as 'converting fossil fuels into food.' None of this is sustainable. Certainly not with billions more on the way.
I believe the figure is 4 billion in Africa, in 20 years. If you could fit them all on a postage stamp, how much land will it take to feed them? house them? how much watershed area? how much space for landfills? Parking area? Space for public transport? Crime goes up when people are cheek to jowl. Prisons take space, too.
 
China is probably losing arable land as fast as the Amazonians can slash and burn rain forests, that are crucial to the environment. The Ogalalla aquifer is nearly done for. The aquifer under Spokane is badly polluted with nitrates. Stories like this all over the country. Honeybees are in decline, and resistant Russian queens have not made a great impact, yet. We can't have all our pesticides and honeybees, too.
 
We have critical water shortages, all over the world, with regularity. Mind-boggling numbers of people face water insecurity and food insecurity daily. Our water supplies in America have nitrates, heavy metals, VOCs, parasites, lead, mercury, and hormone altering pharmaceuticals. Not to mention the highly toxic dry cleaning chemicals and other industrial pollution.
 
Sewage lagoons and water treatment plants are over capacity. Large areas have radioactive materials leaking, not to mention the superfund sites. Look at all the places where you are cautioned to only eat a couple of native fish a year because of heavy metals and pesticides. Look at all the erosion and silt. We are due for another dust bowl, and there ain't a massive aquifer under it this time.
 
 
Europe is reeling with a migration crisis. It will get much worse.  
 
We are probably much in agreement on ideology, but I would like to see you take off those rose-colored glasses. 
We have peaked by borrowing from future agricultural production, it is unsustainable. We will begin to see cracks, and then all hell will break loose. We have been grasshoppers, when we should have been ants.
 
 
We must promote contraception, voluntary, but required in order to receive food charity. We DO have a population bomb, and theology cannot save us from it. God will help them who help themselves. 
 
 
Bill Kamps Added Jul 13, 2018 - 8:29am
Ken, I would agree that technically speaking some things that Congress has passed are probably not Constitutional.  However, since they have not been challenged, they then become defacto Constitutional.  
 
It is kind of like the fence on the side of my yard.  It has a jog in the fence, rather than being straight.  Almost certainly the lot line is straight, but since the difference has never been challenged in over 90 years, probably a court would rule that the lot line is where the fence is, not where the survey says it is.
 
Congress passing laws is far better than executive decrees, or leaving things for the court to sort out.  Often times even when Congress DOES pass a law, there is enough ambiguity that the court has to sort out what the law really means.
 
Pardero, while the population continues to increase, it is doing so at a much slower rate.  The birth rate per 1000 people is half what it was in 1950, and it is predicted to fall another 30% from today's level in another 25 years.   If the Catholic church would promote contraception instead of calling it a sin, the birth rate would probably fall faster, especially among those least able to afford children. 
 
 
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 13, 2018 - 9:26am
Roe v. Wade is another straw dog. More panic mongering. Where ever one may come down in this debate, know this: Any law passed will be broken with impunity by the lawmakers.
 
Legal or no if an abortion is desired there will always be someone to meet the demand. Better that it be above board and in a clinical environment. When we permit the state to decide and proclaim our morality we are all damned
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 13, 2018 - 10:54am
First, understand that there are two side of this fence, neither willing to compromise. The issue is when does life begin, and there are no constitutional writings to address that. Historically, from what have read, abortion in Revolutionary War era was available, and mostly it was performed on prostitutes, of which there were many. Our constitution did not address abortion, and if you want to boil it down, the issue is when life begins. What if you were to wake up one day and find yourself attached to another person who needed your organs to stay live, and unable to disconnect yourself from that person for the next nine months?
If we make abortion illegal, it will still happen, but it will be far more dangerous than in the present situation. All the Republicans need to say is that abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor, and possibly her husband, and the Republicans should feel that the government has no right to intervene in such an intimate matter.
When does life begin? There is no consensus. Religions dictate that life begins when eggs are fertilized, and if you take that position, then IUDs would be illegal, because they do not prevent eggs from being fertilized, they prevent them from attaching to the uterus.  There is nothing in the constitution that says anything about when life begins, and maybe that omission was on purpose. I do not feel that I or my government has any business or right to insist on what a woman can do or not do with her body. This is a one-side or the other-side issue. My position is that our constitution never said when life begins, and, as I say, perhaps that was intentional.
Bill Kamps Added Jul 13, 2018 - 11:22am
All the Republicans need to say is that abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor, and possibly her husband, and the Republicans should feel that the government has no right to intervene in such an intimate matter.
 
I would add in the woman's religious advisor.  Many religious people believe that life begins at conception, and they can advise their followers accordingly.  The Catholics do not believe in birth control, but that doesnt mean other non-Catholics should have to follow the same point of view.
John Minehan Added Jul 13, 2018 - 11:42am
Is the case likely to be overturned?  It's possible, it is, at best an idiosyncratic and (literally) lawless decision.
 
But will overturning Roe going to change the law?  It depends.  At minimum, it will throw the issue back upon the states, only two of whom had laws similar to the state of the law Roe mandated (NY and HI).  For a number of reasons, not least the pervasive use of ultrasounds and the availability of "morning after-pills and similar items, abortion is less acceptable than it was in the 1970s.
 
Fewer OB/GYNs performing them and non-medically indicated abortions being relegated to Planned Parenthood mean they are not easy in places like Texas today.  On the other hand, they are very unlikely to become endanger procedures anywhere on the Acela Corridor.
 
A radical change is unlikely, as it is hard to make a radical change in public health law after 43 years in a way that will place stress on rural and urban hospitals already under stress.  However, access has been declining for years in part due to public perceptions.
John Minehan Added Jul 13, 2018 - 12:15pm
changed law at the Federal Level since it considered the decision to have an abortion to be part of a "Right to Privacy" inferred to exist under the interplay of several of the Bill of Rights.
 
This took the issue out of the ambit of public health law (generally left to the states as part of their "police powers) and put it within the realm of Constitutionally protected rights.
 
It is very speculative, as I recall, about the only case cited is the earlier Griswold v, Conn, which used a similar analysis to attack state laws against contraceptives. 
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 13, 2018 - 1:39pm
That is a tremendous deep dive John. Well done!
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 13, 2018 - 2:00pm
I might add, that this idea of life beginning when the egg is fertilized, was never an issue when Christ was alive. The knowledge of eggs and sperm, in terms of religious history, are recent. The followers of Christ had no knowledge of eggs and sperm in the scientific sense.
I understand that even in the days when Christ walked the earth, there were herbally-induced abortions.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 13, 2018 - 2:04pm
as there were in every other ancient culture
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 13, 2018 - 2:05pm
many of which resulted in the death of mother and childboth
Ken Added Jul 14, 2018 - 2:27am
and miscarriages never happen? silly to compare today to 2000 years ago knowledge..
William Stockton Added Jul 15, 2018 - 3:57pm
Is Roe v. Wade really in danger?
 
No.  Next.