Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

The Death of Roe V. Wade

Page: (1)2

20:40 / 17.08.05

This week I listened to this chilling interview with the head of one of the Midwest's largest pro-choice political action committee. The thing that really scared the crap out of me is that this guy so matter-of-factly predicted that Roe V. Wade would be overturned by around the end of June of next year.

I have been thinking a lot about that interview since I listened to it, and just adding up the pieces. Places like Missouri already have incredibly restrictive abortion laws.

Meanwhile, Pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill birth control prescriptions.

So the climate is becoming increasingly hostile to abortion rights. Is it true? Is Roe V. Wade not long for this world? And what can we do to save it - before it's too late?

Jake, Colossus of Clout

20:58 / 17.08.05

Roe v. Wade still has it by one vote, if I recall correctly. And Roberts has called the case "settled law," although he may be being disingenuous.

21:08 / 17.08.05

I am not so sure he considers the matter 'settled.'

P. Horus Rhacoid

21:19 / 17.08.05

I believe that Roberts said that Roe v. Wade was 'settled law' while he was a lawyer working on a case pertaining to it. As in, no matter how much he might personally disagree with it, it was still the law, and he was bound to treat it as such.

I don't think that in any way precludes him from trying to change it once he's in a position to do so.

06:33 / 18.08.05

I think from that statement it is clear that Roberts respects settled law; however the Supreme Court determines settled law. It's entirely likely that a case could come before the supreme court that would overturn Roe V. Wade.

But again, this is just one aspect of an increasingly hostile attitude towards abortion rights in America. Do you think abortion being illegalized is a possibility in America? Or will moderate Americans finally come out and try and stop such a thing from happening?

13:42 / 18.08.05

It appears to be accepted wisdom among the moderate-lefts (meaning, "I seen this on that talkingpointsmemo.com a couple times") that two-thirds of Americans support Roe v. Wade, and any official overturning of it would lead to a mighty political backlash.

13:56 / 18.08.05

Sounds like complacency to me.

Just as I'd like to believe that Roe Vs Wade will not be over-turn either in spirit or in practice I would have like to have thought that the policies pursued by Bush jnr would have convinced people from across the political spectrum to ensure he wasn't returned for a second term...

Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo

02:33 / 13.09.05

I'm about to say something that has gotten people very angry with me, but...

Roe v Wade was killed back in 2000 when people elected Bush. Once he got into power, the overturning of that decision was inevitable, and for people to say "We need to fight!" is a lot like someone coming upon a charred building and calling the fire department. The fight is already lost. The President has CONSISTANTLY shown that he doesn't care about protests, opposition or other people's opinions, and goes about paying back the people who put him and his corporate handlers in power.

We will very soon have a Supreme Court the rules for business over person, and will enforce a very activist conservative agenda.

The fight is already over but for the Cable TV News shouting.

05:48 / 13.09.05

I think Solitaire Rose is pretty much dead on the money here, for the most part. However, I think there's a slim chance (very slim) that Roe v Wade can survive.

Basically, Bush has two primary drives: rewarding personal loyalty, and pushing the Christian right's agenda. Usually, those two things dovetail pretty nicely, but in this case, the right is uncomfortable with Bush's crony Alberto Gonzales, precisely because he upheld a minor's right to abortion without parental notification in a major Texas case.

Bush seems to really want to reward Gonzales' loyalty with a Supreme Court seat. He's been a good lackey. However, he seems to be too liberal on abortion rights for the comfort of religious conservatives.

I don't know if I want Gonzales on the court, mind you. He could possibly be pro-choice, and that one vote could possibly tip the balance of the court to preserve abortion rights, but he also wrote the infamous "torture memo." I don't know if abortion rights are worth putting someone who feels it's OK for the government to torture people on the Supreme Court.

00:03 / 14.09.05

I don't know if abortion rights are worth putting someone who feels it's OK for the government to torture people on the Supreme Court.

"There is no hierarchy of oppression," said Audre Lorde. It's an evil situation that makes us even entertain such a calculus. I am not going to put one above the other. Forcing someone who does not want a pregnancy to carry the child to term is a grave wrong and bad public policy. Torture is a grave wrong and bad public policy.

08:33 / 08.10.05

I haven't responded to your comments, Solitaire Rose, because I haven't been able to think of any good rebuttals to them. I don't want it to be the case but at the moment your argument, depressing as it is, seems to be correct.

Anyway, I wanted to update this thread as the Missouri government has further restricted access to abortion in that state.

08:58 / 08.10.05

This is insane. Was he the only doctor willing to perform the procedure in the entire state of Missouri?

11:20 / 31.10.05

So, in the light of President Bush's new choice of nominee for the supreme court, do people still think that Roe Vs Wade and a woman's right to choose is safe?

12:38 / 31.10.05

Good grief... (having just read about this) I should think not...

Psi-L is working in hell

13:57 / 31.10.05

It doesn't seem likely does it. Especially given that Alito has supported restrictive abortion-related measures in the past. In fact if this site is anything to go by, Roe vs. Wade is only the tip of the iceberg.

22:02 / 31.10.05

Yeah.. it's a hard call. It depends on how well the Neo-cons can shore up support. You see, especially since the president's support has been shaky at best... so he's gonna have a hard time drawing the support of moderate republicans. Another thing... Arlen Specter is leading this committee (as he has been throughout the process) and he's been the moderate republican that everyone's been hoping will come through in situations like this. He had my vote as a Pennsylvanian and the only one that broke a down the line democratic vote.

Hope and wait, I guess...

14:14 / 01.11.05

You know, in some ways I think that having Roe v. Wade overturned would be a good thing, in the long run.

As long as it stands, religious conservatives will be able to rally people behind the idea of passing a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion, and I'm worried that they one day might succeed. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, however, it would immediately provide the opportunity for those of us on the left to push for a constitutional amendment protecting a woman's right to choose. And I think that such a constitutional amendment could have farther-reaching powers than Roe to compel the states to provide equal access to abortion.

15:08 / 01.11.05

If the Democratic party and those who want to see a womens right to chose protected in law can't prevent the overturning of Roe Vs Wade, what chance do you think they have of getting more stringent laws on the statute books?

Tryphena Absent

15:16 / 01.11.05

Especially considering the ability of America to ignore the truly poor. Anyone with money will still be able to travel over the border to get an abortion.

19:20 / 01.11.05

Hope and wait, I guess...

No, no no no no no NO!! This is not the time for hoping and waiting my friend!! NOW is the time to alert your congressperson that you are against this nomination!! Did you know that you can visit your congressman to discuss issues that are important to you? NOW is the time to do it!!

20:06 / 01.11.05

By the way, here is where you can find contact information for your congressional officials, if you are interested in getting up and doing something.

03:01 / 02.11.05

No, I hear Ms. bomb and I didn't want to make it sound like a give up or wait and see attitude. Thanks for the link. It's been put to use already. I think that following this closely and trying to add to the debate is an important move to make. It ties into so many basics such as human rights, respect for self and others needs, privacy, etc.

I do feel hope since Democrats have been showing some backbone (did you see what Reid did in the senate today) and it's obvious to many that Republicans will have a hard time trying to get away with other things that were on their agenda. Having Miers withdraw, being called on the fabrication of the reasoning for war and having a high-ranking administration official indicted in a week's time is a sign of changes happening to the level of the field. Essentially the message appears to be "Whoa buddy... don't think you can get away with this b.s. too" That kind of talk really needed to be established quite a long time ago but better now then never.

03:51 / 02.11.05

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, however, it would immediately provide the opportunity for those of us on the left to push for a constitutional amendment protecting a woman's right to choose.
Such a thing would never, ever pass. 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the states voting for a Constitutional amendment to protect abortion? Are you smoking crack? I can think of a handful of states where a pro-choice amendment would pass: California, New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the New England states. Maybe Illinois, Oregon, and Washington, too. Nowhere near 3/4.
If Roe goes, so does abortion.
No, no no no no no NO!! This is not the time for hoping and waiting my friend!! NOW is the time to alert your congressperson that you are against this nomination!!
No. Your congressman has no control over this issue. Supreme Court nominees need a simple majority in the Senate, no vote in the House required at all.

Senators, having much broader constituencies and much bigger campaign coffers they need to fill, are seldom as responsive to letter-writing campaigns. They know who their backers are, and statewide elections are harder to tip without major political realignments.

For what it's worth, my state (California) gave its electoral votes to Kerry, and my Senators (Boxer and Feinstein) are already two of the staunchest supporters of abortion rights in the Senate. That's about the sum total of my representation in the Supreme Court nomination process, sadly. I can scream myself hoarse to anyone and everyone, but it will have precisely zero input on the situation.

So, hope and wait it is for me.

17:52 / 02.11.05

Diz - the Senate is a part of congress, thus your senator is also your congressperson. But I digress.

02:54 / 05.11.05

Technically, yes. But when people use the term "Congressman," they usually mean their rep in the House.

Senators don't really respond to pressure the same way. Congressional districts are small enough that a few pissed-off constituents can (theoretically, not considering gerrymandering) do real damage through word-of-mouth and low-level fund raising. Senators these days can generally only be unseated by scandal or changing demographics.

07:48 / 05.11.05

All It Takes For Evil To Triumph Is For A Few Good Men To Do Nothing and just sit and hope and wait...

14:47 / 19.01.06

So far the Supreme Court has dodged hearing cases that might chip away at abortion rights (just the other day, Sandra O'Connor wrote her final decision in opposition to Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy about a New Hampshire law about required spousal notification of aboritions), but I fear what will happen with Alito's probably-inevitable confirmation...

19:53 / 19.01.06

also, i believe recently the court left the right to die issue with the states, where it belongs (oregon has a right to die statute). roberts sided with the dissent there, but it was 6-3, not close.

roe is a states rights issue, which might keep it as law beyond what the right want to make it out to be. to ban it federally would be a bigger issue than the pro-life issue by itself.

generally, the court wants to stay away from really hot political issues. the court doesnt have this wide span to change law, it has to find specific problems with cases, it cant just take a lawsuit and overturn current laws without pissing off a LOT of states and thereby causing political upheaval.

it's scary how religious this country is getting tho. i dont think it's at risk short term with bush and his appointees. but if we keep going in this direction, over a couple of decades, it could change big time.

11:23 / 01.02.06

Aaaaand... the scary right-wing nut is on the court.

Which makes three established scary right-wing nuts (Scalia, Thomas, Alito) and one probable scary right-wing nut (the all-new Roberts' first case saw him side with Scalia and Thomas against the rest of the court on a euthanasia case).

So, as sleazenation asked above, do people still think that Roe Vs Wade and a woman's right to choose is safe? Until one of the liberal justices dies and is replaced by, er, another scary right-wing nut, it would seem to hang on Kennedy, who certainly isn't overly friendly to the cause (see FinderWolf's note above about voting in favour of compulsory spousal notification), but whose definitive opinion on Roe v Wade, from what I've read, seems to be somewhat uncertain.

There are apparently several states passing nasty anti-abortion laws as we speak with the intention of having them end up being debated on the new scary right-wing nut court as a challenge to Roe. Any more on what's in store?

Oh, and:

roe is a states rights issue, which might keep it as law beyond what the right want to make it out to be. to ban it federally would be a bigger issue than the pro-life issue by itself.

Roe as a states' rights issue is, as far as I'm aware, exactly what the right wants it to be. I'd doubt that a ban would never become federal law again, but about a quarter of US states currently have "trigger laws" on the books that means abortion would effectivey be outlawed as soon as Roe was overturned. Eep.

12:17 / 01.02.06

the states rights, yes. however, in a democratic society, states rights prevailing over federal control at least allows for more direct constituent control. and only politically viable laws will, in the long run, succeed.

14:06 / 01.02.06

Methinks if you're going to wait for the Utah legislature to decide that all is fine and dandy with the existence of abortion, or even that its legalisation is better than hundreds of back-alley deaths, you might be waiting for quite a while...

14:18 / 01.02.06

well if thats the case, pro-choice advocates have a different fight to fight. it may be because roe didnt do what it needed to do from a pro-choice point of view. i think to say that alito will overturn roe is simplifying the real issue.

theres only so long this can be discussed before it's going to get to the heart of the matter about whether or not an abortion is rightly or wrongly considered murder, which is illegal. roe didnt address it from that point of view, and if it's going to get to that point, there will need to be more public debate, no? i think roe's fragile state has more to do with unanswered issues, that perhaps do need to be ironed out in the legislature. problem is, it's just not a topic that politicians are going to like, one way or the other. it lends itself to honest debate, not talking points. thats a problem for politicians.

14:41 / 01.02.06

theres only so long this can be discussed before it's going to get to the heart of the matter about whether or not an abortion is rightly or wrongly considered murder, which is illegal.

The problem being that much of the language and terminology associated with this issue is... problematic to say the least. There are so many ways of framing the abrotion debate, and each of themcarries with it its own baggage and biases... is abortion a question of murder or a question about life and where life can be said to viablely begin? Or is it something else entirely...

One other thing I'd say is that if it was down to the states, segregation, and perhaps slavery too, would still be officially in force... But again, the role of national and international government is really a whole other thread...

14:04 / 22.02.06

I hope this is the right thread to post to about the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that's coming to the Supreme Court for review right now. Everyone's waiting to see how Alito will vote... this will be a very important decision in the ongoing battle over Roe v Wade.

Pardon the odd source, but this seemed a nice, concise update on the story. Partial Birth Abortion Ban Under Review

15:43 / 22.02.06

is abortion a question of murder or a question about life and where life can be said to viable begin? Or is it something else entirely...

To many theocons, though, viability doesn't even come into the equation. Life begins at the instant of conception, when one cell divides into two, and at that point that life is deserving of all the protections extended to the born: end of story.

The problem with defining human life in this fashion is that even without abortion, the die-off rate is fucking staggering.

Not every fertilized egg is even going to get a chance to develop into an embryo, let alone a fetus. Most zygotes—perhaps as many as 75%—will never implant into the uterine wall. Of those that do implant, another high percentage—perhaps as high as half—will still be sloughed off in the next menstrual flow. (Exact numbers are hard to come by, but these are consrvative estimates.) Add in spontaneous miscarriages and stillbirths, and you're looking at approximately four conceptions for every live birth. (Sully and his various interlocutors went back and forth on this for a couple of weeks.)

And yet "the moment of conception" continues to be the mantra for the Catholic Church, and for virtually every mainstream Evangelical denomination. This is not a fringe position.

Pro-life people often complain that abortion creates an environment—they call it a "culture of death"—where human life is cheap. But human life is cheap, terribly so—and it's Mother Nature's fault, not that of Roe.

Page: (1)2