Roe v. Wade

[Emsworth]

Roe v. Wade should definitely be reversed. The decision is based on an utterly absurd interpretation of the Constitution. Abortion is, as far as the Constitution is concerned, an issue for each state to resolve in whatever manner it sees fit.

However, I will not be unhappy if Roe is preserved. I am much more concerned about the Supreme Court's decisions relating to the extent of congressional power, than about its decisions relating to social policy.

[Emsworth]

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.

[Emsworth]

So what would be the magical question to ask to figure out how 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' the state is?

There isn't a magical question, because the issue is so complex. One would have to ask separately about abortion in rape cases, abortion to save the mother's life/health, abortion in the first trimester, abortion in the second trimester, etc. Pigeonholing individuals into "pro-choice" and "pro-life" categories is not feasible.

[Emsworth]

Another thing the Supreme Court could potentially do is hand out a ruling that is the inverse of Roe v. Wade; that is, rule all state laws that allow abortions unconstitutional by deeming them murder.

Legalizing murder is not unconstitutional. As long as the murder is being committed by private parties, without the involvement of the state, no constitutional problem arises.

[Emsworth]

Another thing the Supreme Court could potentially do is hand out a ruling that is the inverse of Roe v. Wade; that is, rule all state laws that allow abortions unconstitutional by deeming them murder.

Legalizing murder is not unconstitutional. As long as the murder is being committed by private parties, without the involvement of the state, no constitutional problem arises.

Yes, by your interpretation.  The SCOTUS' interpretation might be very different based on their personal feelings on the issue.

Also, I doubt any of the current SC justices would deem murder as a constitutional act.

No, I think that this is actually a very clear issue. Virtually every judge and lawyer understands that the Bill of Rights (and the rest of the Constitution) prohibits government action, not private action.