Rallies mark Roe v. Wade anniversary - Activists on both sides of the abortion issue marched in demonstrations across the country Saturday to mark the 32nd anniversary of the historic U.S. Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal.
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/23/2005 01:42 AM : I bet this thread gets at least 82 comments, Sky, Nony, Me, Patriot, and a couple from CW, oh, and NeoCon (and some random people). And Alice, can't forget Alice. Sky, I predict will defend it, as well as Nony. I think CW will say something along the lines of "it's not for me to decide". NeoCon and Patriot will trade one remark or two, but both will say it's not right, only Patriot will say it's just his opinion. Alice will say that it's an individual's right and no one should lay blanket policy.
Well, those are my predictions anyway...assuming this thread takes off...
Nony Wrote the following on 01/23/2005 02:52 AM : Have we become THAT predictable? LOL Sufer! (you forgot PoPo, he'll comment about a week from now!)
Alice Wrote the following on 01/23/2005 08:53 AM : I will only say this. Abortion should remain safe and legal. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. But the option must remain available for those who require it.
Golly Wrote the following on 01/23/2005 09:39 AM : Surfer, you forgot me. "And Golly will say something that has nothing at all to do with the submission."
Sky Wrote the following on 01/23/2005 10:53 AM : I'm not quite sure what I am supposed to defend, Surfer. Abortion is a very complex issue, with far-reaching moral and ethical considerations. I could argue on both sides of the issue -- and do so without once invoking Jesus. To be perfectly honest, I sit on the fence about abortion. But you all will understand that I cannot impose my will or point of view on others, so I leave it up to their consciences to make a decision for themselves. Since I have a penis, and cannot ever become pregnant, it really isn't for me to judge the rightness or wrongness of a woman's decision to carry or abort an unwanted pregnancy. For these reasons, I can no choice but to be pro-choice.
Everyone is becoming more and more shrill about Chief Justice Rehnquist's illness and his inevitable departure from the bench. He has a very agressive form of thyroid cancer, one that has a near 100% mortality rate. Miracles do happen, but I'd not bet the farm. For now, though Rehnquist's health and treatment prevents him from preciding over the court in session, he is attending the justices' weekly meetings, wherein they debate cases and make their rulings. What most people don't know is that Rehnquist has no use for George W. Bush. There are rumors that Rehnquist has said privately that Bush lacks the intellectual prowess needed to be president and that his disregard for the constitution sets a dangerous precidence. I don't know if these rumors are true. But he is in no hurry to step down and give Bush the opportunity to name a Chief Justice. I don't believe he will do so until he has no other choice.
But really, it's all academic. Bush must have a two-thirds majority to get a nominee confirmed. Given the importance of this post and the fact that he's not the Senate Democrats favorite guy, if is very unlikely that they would confirm an extreme right-wing jurist, who would serve as Bush's toady. Also, consider that Justices rarely behave on the bench the way the president hopes they will. It is for this reason, the framers of the constitution gave the Supreme Court so much power and autonomy. Ronald Reagan certainly learned this lesson with his appointment of Sandra Day O'Conner to the court. He was certain that she'd vote to overturn Roe, but so far she has failed to even do much to limit access to abortion.
Most legal scholars believe that the Court will never overturn Roe v. Wade, because the court has never once in its history reversed itself on an issue of such importance. It has set a body of precedence supporting and strengthing the Roe decision since 1973. The best the anti-abortion camp can hope for is that the Court will uphold the spirit of Roe, but rule that the states have the consitutional right to regulate abortion as they see fit. There is, after all, an argument to be made that this is a state's rights issue. Were the Court to rule this way, it won't mean that abortions will instantly become illegal throughout the US, though they most assuredly would in the less progressive states. We'd essentially be back to where we were prior to 1973, when women desiring an abortion would have to travel to a neighboring state to get one, should their state outlaw them.
If anyone believe that there are no "back-alley" abortions being performed in the US just because abortion is leagal, think again. Some poor women simply don't have the $800-$2000 dollars it costs to get an abortion in a clinic, nor do they have the means to travel to a city that has abortion clinic if they live in an area where there are none (most of the US). But there is nearly always someone nearby who performs abortions on the cheap. Consider, too, that before 1973, gynocologists performed an awful lot of D&Cs on teenaged girls to remove "uterine masses." Get it? The Court understands these things, so I sincerely doubt they will even return abortion regulation to the states.
So was I predictable?
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/23/2005 11:59 AM : I haven't read enough of PoPo's stuff to guess and Golly, I'm sorry, you just haven't been commenting long enough to register in my mind automatically (no offense).
Sky, perhaps I need to read mor of your comments :) Alice, I suppose I should have expected that :)
But the prediction was just in good fun (not meant to piss anyone off)...
(but, the defence of the option and pointing out what getting rid of it is still a defence, no?) :) Anyway, smiles, folks.
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/23/2005 6:51 PM : I think the man should have a say, after all, it takes two.
Alice Wrote the following on 01/23/2005 8:04 PM : The fella should have a say ... if he's around. More often than not, women have abortions because they have been abandoned by the man that got them pregnant, and cannot support both themselves and the child.
Sky Wrote the following on 01/24/2005 05:36 AM : Exactly Pepe... As I said abortion is a very complex issue. You touch on something I'd already written in another post: what about the father's reproductive rights? I wasn't "copping out," but ultimately, it is a woman's choice to carry or abort and though it may be unfair, the man has nothing to say about it.