Roe v. Wade-It scares me....

[Anonymous]

The last two appointees the Dems only had a one vote margin. The 2008 elections are going to significantly increase that margin. That said, the Dems could have and should have tried harder to stop Alito.

[Anonymous]

As long as we're on this subject, would someone please explain to me in non-legalese terms exactly what it would mean if R v W were ever overturned? How is that different than having, say, a constitutional amendment banning abortion? Is Congress overturning a supreme court decision the final word nationally, or would the question return to the individual states? (Sorry for all of these dumb civics questions; I was not a poli sci major, obviously.)

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:As long as we're on this subject, would someone please explain to me in non-legalese terms exactly what it would mean if R v W were ever overturned? How is that different than having, say, a constitutional amendment banning abortion? Is Congress overturning a supreme court decision the final word nationally, or would the question return to the individual states? (Sorry for all of these dumb civics questions; I was not a poli sci major, obviously.)

Congress can't overturn a Supreme Court decision. They can pass a constitutional amendment (which then has to be ratified by the states or convention) or try to pass a law that passes constitutional muster. If a future Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion would return to the states. Many states already make abortion nearly impossible, so that would effectively outlaw abortion in many states. A constitutional amendment would have to be passed by Congress and then ratified, but would supersede any state laws.

[Rich]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-Choice professional here (meaning I have been working to defend Roe v Wade professionally for 10+ years).

The Democrats will have 60 Senate seats after this election. Any Supreme Court nominee McCain comes up with who does not support Roe can be and should be blocked by the US Senate. The Dems won't tell you this now because they depend on holding Roe over our heads to get our votes....however, why do we vote for them if they won't stand up and block anti-choice nominees?

If this is true, how did the last 2 appointees get through?

By lying about how they would respect Stare Decisis.

[Anonymous]

Don't be too worried. Yes, Roe v. Wade will probably be overturned and it will be left for the states to decide. Most states will allow abortions. It will be unfortunate that there will be some poor women in rural areas that may not be able to obtain an abortion without traveling to another state, which can be cumbersome and expensive. Maybe an organization can be structured to help these women.

In order to outlaw abortion completely, there would have to be an amendment to the Constitution, which I believe requires a vote of 2/3 of the Senate. That's just not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

PP here. I was wrong. I just did a google search and its even harder than that to get a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion.

[Anonymous]

I'm horrified by the possibility of Roe. V. Wade being reversed.
I'm also heartbroken that my gay and lesbian friends have to listen to a woman and party that literally are "anti-gay", it sickens me to think about how that must feel. Such a step back from the Civil and Human Rights so many worked so hard for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I happen to be pro-choice, but I also happen to have a husband who is in counter-terrorism and has an inside track on the good work we are doing in this administration. It's trite, and has been said too many times, but you really have no idea what kind of success we are achieving in disrupting terrorism cells and plots. Big and little, every day there is always something.

So, for me, it comes down to this: who will best ensure we get critical information we need to disrupt plots, to deport terrorists, and eliminate threats? I wish there was a candidate who could represent both pro-choice and national safety, but I'm afraid Obama would take away many of the powers and tools from our national intelligence agencies. Pro-choice concerns would become pretty trivial after say, a nuclear attack.

So do you think if McAlzheimer drops dead, Pander-lin will take up the slack on counter terrorism. I'm pretty confident that she could not find Iran or Pakistan on the world map. I question if she can even find the United States given that she's held a passport for only 2 years and has not used it yet.

Wow! You are so cleaver with your name calling.

Huh? Cleaver? Like Beaver Cleaver?

[Anonymous]

I wonder how why all you pro-choice women arent defending Sarah Palins choice not to murder her baby? Or support her in protecting her daughter who decided not to murder her baby!

Also, I want all you who are critical of Bush and McCain to think of my college friend who was killed by those murderous Islamic terrorists and who's wife and children still bare the wounds of that terrible day.

Abortion is post-sex contraception for white middle class women who want to keep their limousion liberal status. Ugh! You liberal, American hating pukes are so repugnant.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Also, I want all you who are critical of Bush and McCain to think of my college friend who was killed by those murderous Islamic terrorists and who's wife and children still bare the wounds of that terrible day.

Of course Bush and McCain chose to go to war in Iraq while Bin Laden remains free. I am sorry for the loss of your friend. I am also sorry for all the innocent people who were killed in Bush and McCain's misguided war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I happen to be pro-choice, but I also happen to have a husband who is in counter-terrorism and has an inside track on the good work we are doing in this administration. It's trite, and has been said too many times, but you really have no idea what kind of success we are achieving in disrupting terrorism cells and plots. Big and little, every day there is always something.

So, for me, it comes down to this: who will best ensure we get critical information we need to disrupt plots, to deport terrorists, and eliminate threats? I wish there was a candidate who could represent both pro-choice and national safety, but I'm afraid Obama would take away many of the powers and tools from our national intelligence agencies. Pro-choice concerns would become pretty trivial after say, a nuclear attack.

So do you think if McAlzheimer drops dead, Pander-lin will take up the slack on counter terrorism. I'm pretty confident that she could not find Iran or Pakistan on the world map. I question if she can even find the United States given that she's held a passport for only 2 years and has not used it yet.

Wow! You are so cleaver with your name calling.

I figure the VP is Plan B in case something happens to the Prez (Plan A). So what's the back-up plan regarding the counter terrorism strategy, if McSame croaks, Einstein? I'm listening.

[Anonymous]

For all the Bush haters, I'll remind you of two things: first, Clinton and Berger let his slip thru the not first, and two, while you may say the war is misguided, you cant argue that we've not had another attack since 9/11.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:For all the Bush haters, I'll remind you of two things: first, Clinton and Berger let his slip thru the not first, and two, while you may say the war is misguided, you cant argue that we've not had another attack since 9/11.

It was Bush, not Clinton, who was given a report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike within the US" and decided to stay on vacation and ignore the warning. Also, our enemies have been able to kill more Americans in Iraq then were killed in 9/11. Why should they come here if we are going to go there? We've saved them transportation costs.

[Anonymous]

Pro-choice Dem here that had 3 classmates killed in the towers on 9/11. It's very clear to me that fighting unnecessary wars in the Middle East only enrages and strengthens the terrorists. The anti US sentiment is much worse now than, say, 8 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how why all you pro-choice women arent defending Sarah Palins choice not to murder her baby? Or support her in protecting her daughter who decided not to murder her baby!

Also, I want all you who are critical of Bush and McCain to think of my college friend who was killed by those murderous Islamic terrorists and who's wife and children still bare the wounds of that terrible day.

Abortion is post-sex contraception for white middle class women who want to keep their limousion liberal status. Ugh! You liberal, American hating pukes are so repugnant.

Most people that are pro-choice are saying that it was Sarah Palin's choice to continue the pregnancy as well as her daughter's choice to have the baby and all they are asking is that they are allowed to make their own choices. I think what always gets my goat about the whole debate is there are so many children in foster care, unwanted children in this country, parents that want to keep their children and stuggle to cover the basics, situations where the father is not contributing either financially or emotionally to his children, childcare costs thru the roof and finding family friendly jobs are difficult. But instead of focusing the energy on improving the quality of life for the children that are here and making it easier for the struggling parent with children, the focus is pro-life/pro-choice rather than trying to make it so people aren't put in a position that they are making a choice, or making it easier for them to pick the choice you want. The feminist in me also believes it is the woman that bears the brunt of all of this - wearing the scarlet A so to speak if the choice were to be taken away from them. As for abortion being post-sex contraception, I would hope it isn't used that way. Unfortunately it's like lending someone money. You hope they are responsible and will pay you back let's say ahead of buying a plane ticket to Miami because their friends are going. But reality is you have no control once you hand over the money and for some people will use the money you lent them for something like buying books for school but someone else will use it to go to South Beach - it depends on the person.

The one things conservatives do have right is abstinence is the only thing that is 100% effective. I remember taking a baby center poll about if the pregancy was a surprise. There were people on birth control pills, using condoms, told they would never have kids, with one ovary, had not gotten pregnant in 10 years of the relationship - you name it and found themselves pregnant. So I don't think it's fair to say it is post-sex contraception. And dare I ask - where is the father in all of this debate - offering to raise the kids on his own I suppose.