Roe v. Wade is history

Post Reply New Topic

Have read that many major companies are authorizing through their insurance companies to pay for time and travel involved in maternal situations .Some States are still allowing the abortive procedures . But the biggest
Problem here as I see it , Not everyone has private insurance or are even employed . Women most likely needing these procedures might be unemployed or unemployable. Nor have funds to travel . And maybe likely not to be paying attn to their bodies in favour of just trying to keep a roof over their heads or food on the table.
Not to mention the young ones , whom may not even understand pregnancy,after being abused . And just want to play with their toys. So a month passes and surprise .

And it is possible now that abortions are not constitutionally protected that their could be a Federal ban on abortions. In that case we are talking about travel not to another state but to another country.

I think all agree that the rapist has caused a horrific choice between letting a rapist get away with it and probably doing it again and possibly further traumatizing an innocent child. For AngelRho the choice is horrible but clear cut. If it was my child the choice would not be so clear cut. As a father would I really force my daughter to do something that has a possibility of having negative consequences the rest of her life?. Force her to do something many adult victims can not bring themselves to do for the sake of a stranger?

Lets get back to my original statement that prosecuting a person who raped a 10 year old is complicated. As a prosecutor you want nothing more then to put away somebody like that. You have likely prosecuted serial rapists who have gotten away with it time and time again because victims refused to cooperate. But you also have no idea if the parents are going to cooperate and you yourself are empathetic to the consequences for a 10 year old victim. Both practically and morally it’s complicated and the fault lies with the rapist.

More men are seeking vasectomies now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe

This 10 yr old situation has incensed me so much.. common sense laws would be maybe to permanently castrate rapists . And if person is under a certain age .. Maybe putting the death penalty as a jury choice, might cause would be rapists of children to reconsider their actions.????

People who are castrated still would abuse children, even sexually, because it’s not really about sex. It’s more about a twisted and perverse enjoyment they get from hurting others and the power.

The guy in the situation I was in as an adult surprisingly admitted that it was just about power. I’d imagine sickos who abuse children derive a similar gratification from it.

No, it means if they live in certain conservative states, they can't get abortions. Only if said Americans live in states where it's still legal.

But I thought that a few months ago the Texas override the federal law on abortion by enacting their own law that you could only have one up to 6 weeks.

if the government was so powerful on abortion for all states, how was Texas able to do this a few months ago, before Roe was overturned?

Prior to Roe Vs. Wade being overturned, the courts could have struck down such laws.

I’ll put it this way: ALL states have the power to pass pretty much any legislation they want. Washington State could up and decide to pass a law that legalizes racial slavery and confiscate all their property.

The problem for Washington State would be that racial slavery is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. What would immediately happen is a law professor somewhere would file and amicus brief, and it would be tossed out in an appeals court immediately with the trial being pretty much symbolic. I doubt SCOTUS would even bother with it. Even though the state legal code grants Washington citizens the right to hold Asian slaves, the state of Washington is powerless to enforce it.

Now…suppose Washington state were to attempt to enforce the law. The rest of the USA would have to decide how to proceed. They could sanction WS, imposing punitive taxes or cutting off federal funding. They could set up checkpoints on all roads/highways leading in/out of WS and hold the entire state under siege. They could expel WS from the union, though that is extremely unlikely. Or they could declare war and invade, give state leaders military trials, and appoint leaders to reconstruct WS at federal discretion. They can do whatever they want, really.

Now, apply the same principle to Roe and Casey. State legislatures ALWAYS had the freedom to blatantly circumvent Roe/Casey. I think the US was in shock for a time after Roe, but once the court challenges began, it was only a matter of time. The difference between this and hypothetical slavery is racial freedom is enumerated and abortion wasn’t. So far, all states still respect the courts. If a court strikes down a law, that’s the end of that law for the state. They can go back to the drawing board for the next law, but THAT law is unenforceable because of court decisions.

What really upset a lot of people is they felt that Roe was the action of activist judges legislating from the bench, not the will of the people. Maybe in another post I’ll explain why it’s going to be nearly impossible to pass federal legislation to impose abortion on the states, but that would always have been the preferred option rather than the courts. Technically the states could just ignore SCOTUS and lower courts, but then they risk the federal government stepping in. Abortion apparently wasn’t worth that kind of fight.

Last point for the time being: the existence of appeals courts and SCOTUS is to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected. A majority of people in the USA were angry that Roe happened and imposed abortion on populations who thought it was wrong. There seems to be a slight majority of people who want abortion. Isn’t it funny how the tables can turn? Pro-life has become a minority view that has to be protected, and once again SCOTUS has stepped in to do just that.

unless you’re a woman in a red state who was raped and became pregnant, among other reasons why abortions are needed.

There was literally a house speaker in Mississippi who recently said that child who was raped should be forced to give birth to child.

Irrelevant. Polls say a slight majority of Americans are in favor of abortion. If this is actually true, then there’s no problem passing legislation to guarantee abortion (actually, there is, but I’m saving that for another post). The pro-abortion view IS the majority view. Now the minority interest is in the states settling the matter of abortion for themselves. SCOTUS is protecting a minority view.

Your opinion on what a Mississippi legislator says reflects an emotional attachment to a medical procedure designed to murder people in the womb. What Mississippi and, really, all states need right now is calm debate on what path best serves state interest and, by extension, individuals living in those states. Making it an emotional issue does not reflect a desire or ability to handle it rationally.

Washington state is hardly the best example to give, as it wasn't even a state during the Civil War but a territory firmly with the Union. That, and Washington hardly has the history of opposing civil rights as numerous other (red) states do.

But if this was the case and States could do anything they wanted prior to it being overturned, then why is everyone in a fuss about it if States could just do what they wanted before anyway?

I don't believe in sex strikes, not wanting to have sex because you don't want to risk a pregnancy and risk birth control failing is not a sex strike. Not everyone can travel to a blue state for an abortion because not everyone can get time off for it nor have the finances to do it.

I already answered that. But I’ll try to summarize: while the states may differ on issues, FOR NOW they still respect the authority of the courts and are willing to follow the process. If they defy the courts, they risk consequences that might not be acceptable for their citizens.

Examples: senior citizens would lose social security. State entitlement programs are funded by the federal government, so poor single mothers would lose WIC and risk starving to death. The states depend on the federal government, so ignoring Congress and federal courts would not be in a state's best interest. They’d be cut off from national defense, so they risk exposure to terrorists and even foreign invasion. Invasion wouldn’t be in the best interest of the USA, so the President could order military intervention by invading the state.

Don’t miss this: no court can stop any state legislature from passing whatever law they want. What the courts do is render laws unenforceable. What is the point of having laws you can’t enforce? Well, they’re entirely symbolic. To use my previous scenario with Washington State enslaving Asians, Washington could pass a law legalizing slavery but would be unable to enforce it. WS could follow up with a trigger law enslaving all Asians if the 13th amendment was repealed.

It’s not that Washington is serious about enslaving Asians. It’s about making a statement. We want slaves/don’t want abortion. The obvious difference is that actual slavery in the USA was a protected minority interest in the 1800’s. Abolishing slavery was the right thing to do, but you can’t reasonably expect a slave economy to turn on a dime and give you nine cents change. Had there been a clear path for abolition, southerners could have transitioned to a non-slave economy, blacks could have been integrated into society without being put in danger, and Civil Rights and all the disasters that came with it never would have happened. The states have mostly all had a path back to pre-Roe already in place. There’s some confusion since states were never seriously counting on Roe actually being overturned. But now that Roe is overturned and society has changed since Roe passed, there’s need for adjustment. I’m just waiting for people to realize that they’re panicking over nothing.