Roe v. Wade

[dazzleman]

Yes.  I think the ruling has distorted our political process for 33 years, and is a particularly egregious example of judicial activism, and has had no end of ill effects for our form of government.

The issue should be turned over to the state legislatures, where it should have been left in the first place.  And you know what will change effectively -- nothing.  The state legislatures, on balance, will vote to keep early term abortions legal and place restrictions on late term abortions.  That is what the American people want.  Those who oppose this should lobby legislators for change, not courts.  The states that would put more restrictive bans on abortion effectively offer little access to abortion at this point anyway, so there's no real change there.

[dazzleman]

Yes.  I think the ruling has distorted our political process for 33 years, and is a particularly egregious example of judicial activism, and has had no end of ill effects for our form of government.

The issue should be turned over to the state legislatures, where it should have been left in the first place.  And you know what will change effectively -- nothing.  The state legislatures, on balance, will vote to keep early term abortions legal and place restrictions on late term abortions.  That is what the American people want.  Those who oppose this should lobby legislators for change, not courts.  The states that would put more restrictive bans on abortion effectively offer little access to abortion at this point anyway, so there's no real change there.

My opinion exactly -though it would shift the Democratic Party even further to the left with multitudes of younger newly-initiated feminists dominating the primaries and making abortion even more of a litmus test than it already is. 

Still, for the sake of this nation, I guess it's worth the price. 

I think any political effects from overturning Roe vs. Wade would be temporary.  Getting rid of this bad ruling would help Democrats in the sense that the radical feminists among them would no longer be able to burden them with the requirement of defending the ruling, and of going to ridiculous lengths to defend a total lack of restrictions, even those favored by 75% majorities.  It would also energize abortion supporters.

But that would all pass.  The legislatures would settle the issue in a way that the Supreme Court never did, because if it had, abortion suporters wouldn't be sitting here 33 years later sweating bullets over every Supreme Court appointment.  Ironically, the overturning of Roe vs. Wade could be the best thing to happen for legalized abortion, because abortion laws passed by legislatures would be far more durable in the long run than Roe vs. Wade.

At the same time, a settling of the abortion issue could also lead Republicans to pick up voters who may support them on other issues but not abortion.  I suspect that overturning Roe vs. Wade could lead to a political landslide and major realignment, and that would probably be a good thing, on balance, in that it would most likely reduce the prominence of social issues in voting.

[dazzleman]

No.  State legislatures are poor representation of the electorate on this issue and I'm glad the Federal government stepped in to balance it out.  In states like Pennsylvania, a clear majority say of 20 points, is pro-choice.  You wouldn't know that if you looked at our legislative roster because you know why, and this is something the Supreme Court should have taken care of- GERRYMANDERING! 

By this logic, legislatures, including the US House, shouldn't have control over anything.  It should all go to the Supreme Court, which clearly represents the will of the people better than a recently elected legislature.  Same would be true of the US Senate, since it doesn't have proportional representation.  That must be unconstitutional -- except for the fact that the constitution explicitly sets up the Senate.

I think you're mixing up your arguments.  The job of the courts is not to take over when legislatures don't make the 'right' decisions, but to operate in a very narrow zone of protecting the bedrock rights of people from a majority that may want to take them away.  I don't believe abortion falls into this category, and I think there was never any reason to take the issue from the legislatures.  It was judicial activism of the worst kind, during an era replete with examples of it.

[dazzleman]

yes, roe v. wade should be overturned.  it is a state issue.

i, of course, completely support legalized abortion.  but it should be decided at the state level.

I respect your position Wally, even though I don't support fully legalized abortion.

The problem I have with the issue is that it was not decided through the democratic process, but through judicial usurpation of the privileges and rights of the other government branches.  This is a dangerous thing for our form of government, whether you agree with abortion or not.  I commend you for recognizing this.

I have the same feeling about gay marriage.  I have no problem with the civil union law in Connecticut, because it was passed by the legislature, and signed by the governor.  Had it been imposed by the courts, I'd have a big problem with it.

So though I don't believe in abortion, I'll go along with whatever the majority really wants, but I have a problem going along with what radical feminists have illegitimately rammed through the courts.

[dazzleman]

The one that listed the options, pro-choice and pro-life? Yeah, that was trash and you know it.

Nah, here's one:

6. Would you like to see the United States Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade?

Yes 36%
No 54%

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/pa_poll_1116.htm

Spin that!  Choices unfair?  Misleading?

I don't think that most Americans know exactly what the Supreme Court actually decided in Roe.

Hardly the point.  Most Americans support the decision, based upon their knowledge of the situation.

Most people probably think that overturning Roe vs. Wade would automatically make abortion illegal.  What that poll really means is that a majority of people don't want abortion illegalized.  At the same time, a majority doesn't want unrestricted abortion.

[dazzleman]

Asking about specific bans on abortion. You know, like I said five minutes ago.

I don't know of any such polls that have been done.

But most likely the majority would support legal abortions in the first trimester and later-term abortion bans.

Yes, I think you're right.  That's the real middle ground on abortion that Roe prevents from coalescing through its erroneous declaration of abortion as a constitutional right.

[dazzleman]

Well the Dakotas have a pretty Democratic delegation to Congress and are more or less libertarian in ideology as are most of the High Plains.  Most of the Southern states polled were pretty much even or slightly pro-life.  This concept of "leave it to the states" is a tired excuse pro-lifers use and Pennsylvania is the pinnacle example of how an out of touch legislature can screw it up for us.

Flyers, if the Pennsylvania legislature is so out of touch, why should it be deciding anything?  Why should abortion be the only issue taken away from it?  Why not take away all issues from this legislature?

[dazzleman]

Well the Dakotas have a pretty Democratic delegation to Congress and are more or less libertarian in ideology as are most of the High Plains.  Most of the Southern states polled were pretty much even or slightly pro-life.  This concept of "leave it to the states" is a tired excuse pro-lifers use and Pennsylvania is the pinnacle example of how an out of touch legislature can screw it up for us.

Flyers, if the Pennsylvania legislature is so out of touch, why should it be deciding anything?  Why should abortion be the only issue taken away from it?  Why not take away all issues from this legislature?

If Roe were overturned there would be an outright war in this state and it wouldn't be pretty.  Philadelphia, Montgomery, Bucks, etc. would be fuming if abortion were otulawed and dare I say there would be the possibility of secession.  PA 6 and 8 would definitely now go to the Democrats and likely a few more State House seats.   

So you're saying that the courts should deal with legislative issues because the political process can't handle those issues?

[dazzleman]

Yes.  I think the ruling has distorted our political process for 33 years, and is a particularly egregious example of judicial activism, and has had no end of ill effects for our form of government.

The issue should be turned over to the state legislatures, where it should have been left in the first place.  And you know what will change effectively -- nothing.  The state legislatures, on balance, will vote to keep early term abortions legal and place restrictions on late term abortions.  That is what the American people want.  Those who oppose this should lobby legislators for change, not courts.  The states that would put more restrictive bans on abortion effectively offer little access to abortion at this point anyway, so there's no real change there.

Once again, I agree with you.  Are you sure you're not as conservative as I am?

Rin-chan

We're probably equally conservative.  I think we're both conservative leaning Republicans, but not extreme right-wingers.

[dazzleman]

Check out her PC score.

Average them together, and we're about equal...
Rin-chan's scores don't really seem to jibe with the opinions she expresses here, so maybe some of the questions were misleading.

[dazzleman]

Most third trimester abortions are done for health reasons.

That's the standard NOW line.  As such, I doubt that it's true.  Probably about as true as their statistic that 85% of American men beat their wives on Superbowl Sunday, or some such thing.  I believe nothing those people say.