How to Overturn Roe v. Wade

[100% pro-life no matter what]

What is the best strategy for pro-lifers to take to overturn Roe?  Is it the life at conception act (because of the loophole in Roe that the Court wasn't going to decide when life begins)?  Is it a case as a direct challenge?  Is it to gradually chip away at it?

[Bojack Horseman]

Move to Ireland.

[bedstuy]

Replace Kennedy or one of the 4 Democratic nominees with a conservative hack who hates women.

[Skill and Chance]

Even if Ginsburg were to be replaced by a second Scalia, I can't see Kennedy or Roberts signing on to a national right to life, so it would probably return the issue to the states.  It would definitely be a severe felony in all of the yellow states and would definitely remain legal with few restrictions in all of the green states.  In the grey states, it would either remain legal under highly restricted terms or be illegal but punished lightly, probably with a fine:

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I could see Roberts vote to overturn Roe v Wade.

[Skill and Chance]

I could see Roberts vote to overturn Roe v Wade.

Yes, by leaving it to the states.  Roberts considers the political implications of his decisions and knows that national right to life would lead to a 2008 level Democratic wave pretty much regardless of anything else that happened in the interim.  Returning it to the pre-Roe status quo would be much easier for the electorate to handle.

[Ebsy]

The Court isn't going to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It wont be overturned even if it is returned to states.

That's why they want to get it to Kennedy; most states want a post 20 week ban.

GOP in states like TX and Dakotas still know, country isnt ready for a pro life movement. As womem will flee to Canada.

The pro life movement is a rallying cry for the right against another Ginnsburg justice, so that the court doesnt turn all Dem control; when Kennedy does leave, in opposition to SSM.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Amend the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment begins "All persons born ..." and with that the pro-life people basically lose the argument.

[TJ in Oregon]

Amend the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment begins "All persons born ..." and with that the pro-life people basically lose the argument.

Replacing a liberal justice and fighting it state-by-state is far more likely than passing a constitutional amendment. By the time popular support got high enough or an amendment, the former would already be well underway.

[Pandaguineapig]

It wont be overturned even if it is returned to states.

That's why they want to get it to Kennedy; most states want a post 20 week ban.

GOP in states like TX and Dakotas still know, country isnt ready for a pro life movement. As womem will flee to Canada.

The pro life movement is a rallying cry for the right against another Ginnsburg justice, so that the court doesnt turn all Dem control; when Kennedy does leave, in opposition to SSM.

lol

[Cryptic]

Not going to be overturned. Seriously, it's been over 40 years. Roberts isn't a hardcore culture warrior, who'd overturn something with that amount of legal precedent.

[Adam Griffin]

Average Cost of Abortion in the US: $500
Cost of Abortion in Canada: $400
Cost of Abortion in Canada w/ Agency Reserving Airfare & Airport Pickup for Americans: $700

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The court already partially overturned Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Gonzales v. Carhart. The later of anyone who gave a sh**t about "state's rights" would be railing against. Further proof that "state's rights" are only mentioned when they help the right-wing causes.

[Skill and Chance]

Average Cost of Abortion in the US: $500
Cost of Abortion in Canada: $400
Cost of Abortion in Canada w/ Agency Reserving Airfare & Airport Pickup for Americans: $700

It's not generally executives and wives of executives who seek abortions.  Doubling the cost (and a rider on US health insurance to cover any medical complications while in Canada would add another $100 or so) would have an effect, whether you think that would be a good thing or a bad thing.  Also, in this world, wouldn't the most pro-life states just make it an equivalent crime to leave for foreign travel pregnant and come back non-pregnant without medical documentation of the miscarriage/stillbirth?

[Beet]

Considering who has abortions, overturning Roe v. Wade would only seriously exacerbate the Republicans' already dire long term demographic issues.

[CountryClassSF]

What is the best strategy for pro-lifers to take to overturn Roe?  Is it the life at conception act (because of the loophole in Roe that the Court wasn't going to decide when life begins)?  Is it a case as a direct challenge?  Is it to gradually chip away at it?

Win the White House, hold the Senate, and end the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations.  Thoroughly vet all court nominees to ensure that they will be strict constructionists.

In meantime, get public to understand that overturning Roe doesn't explicitly "ban" abortions (although I wish it would). It simply dictates that the destruction of life is not a constitutionally guaranteed protection.

if we don't win the White House in the near future, we can forget about Roe being overturned in our lifetimes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Doubtful that even if the GOP wins the White House in 2016 that Roe gets overturned any time soon.  I don't see either Kennedy or Roberts going for an explicit overturn, tho both may be amenable to further restrictions to abortion. Pro-life advocates probably need to replace three of the liberal justices to have a chance of getting Roe overturned since it's likely at least one of the three would have sufficient respect for precedent to make them not support an outright overturn.

[TJ in Oregon]

Doubtful that even if the GOP wins the White House in 2016 that Roe gets overturned any time soon.  I don't see either Kennedy or Roberts going for an explicit overturn, tho both may be amenable to further restrictions to abortion. Pro-life advocates probably need to replace three of the liberal justices to have a chance of getting Roe overturned since it's likely at least one of the three would have sufficient respect for precedent to make them not support an outright overturn.

I'm not betting it'll get overturned but it wouldn't require replacing three liberal justices, only replacing one liberal plus Kennedy, which is actually conceivable. Not extremely likely, but possible.

[Ebsy]

I should just start linking this thread to people who think Democrats should throw away the 2016 presidential election to win a couple House seats or something.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I should just start linking this thread to people who think Democrats should throw away the 2016 presidential election to win a couple House seats or something.

To be fair, Roe being fully overturned would be a boost to their electoral prospects at the State level.

[Skill and Chance]

I should just start linking this thread to people who think Democrats should throw away the 2016 presidential election to win a couple House seats or something.

To be fair, Roe being fully overturned would be a boost to their electoral prospects at the State level.

Yes, the election after Roe v. Wade is overturned would be a modern 1958 for Democrats IMO.

[Abraham Reagan]

Amend the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment begins "All persons born ..." and with that the pro-life people basically lose the argument.

Well, the 14th Amendment also states "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note that it says person and not citizen. All people within the boundaries of the US have these basic rights. It's the same reason why we can't just kill all illegal immigrants even though they've broken the law and aren't citizens. Since we conservatives believe (and science shows) that life begins at conception, we believe the unborn should be included in this clause. So no, we don't lose the argument.

[Gass3268]

Amend the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment begins "All persons born ..." and with that the pro-life people basically lose the argument.

Well, the 14th Amendment also states "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note that it says person and not citizen. All people within the boundaries of the US have these basic rights. It's the same reason why we can't just kill all illegal immigrants even though they've broken the law and aren't citizens. Since we conservatives believe (and science shows) that life begins at conception, we believe the unborn should be included in this clause. So no, we don't lose the argument.

Fetuses, like corporations, are not people.

[Abraham Reagan]

Amend the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment begins "All persons born ..." and with that the pro-life people basically lose the argument.

Well, the 14th Amendment also states "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note that it says person and not citizen. All people within the boundaries of the US have these basic rights. It's the same reason why we can't just kill all illegal immigrants even though they've broken the law and aren't citizens. Since we conservatives believe (and science shows) that life begins at conception, we believe the unborn should be included in this clause. So no, we don't lose the argument.

Fetuses, like corporations, are not people.

The DNA in a zygote is the exact same as that same person's DNA on their death bed. The whole "Yes a fetus is alive but not a person" is more of a moral argument and not a scientific one. Science says that life begins at conception, and what other life could that be if not human life? It's not like one day it's a blob of tissue and then the next it's a person; it's always a person.