Interesting, with Republicans now in control of all branches of government, and a conservative SCOTUS, I wonder if Roe vs Wade will be overturned in the coming years.
If there was a time for Republicans to act on it, now would be the perfect opportunity.
My guess is the Republicans won’t go for a complete ban or even a judicial overturn of Roe. That would be too likely to trigger a political backlash.
Instead they’ll use their political majority and friendly judicial atmosphere to attack abortions indirectly; defunding, targeted regulation, stuff like that. It’ll remain theoretically legal to have an abortion but women will find it increasingly difficult.
Poor women will find it increasingly difficult; rich women will always have easy and discrete access to abortion.
Donald Trump can’t do anything by himself about it. The president can’t undo a Supreme Court decision. At most he can make appointments to the SCotUS who he thinks will rule the way he wants, if such a case comes up. And there’s no guarantee one will.
As far as indirect attacks, that’s been the case for years. It’ll mean access to abortions will depend on which state you live in, but that’s been becoming increasingly so for years. Everyone who wants an abortion will have to move to the Northeast or the West Coast.
Yeah , back alley abortions will be happening again !
What, you mean Donald Trump is going to be funding increased access to effective, long-term contraceptives?
You mean Donald Trump is going to be encouraging early and comprehensive sexual education?
When I hear “end abortion”, that’s what comes to mind. Banning abortion doesn’t make it go away, it just makes it more dangerous.
They had all that in 2001, you know.
Encouraging policies to improve medical care, daycare, general support & education of children would also help–in a positive way. But so many of the anti-choice folks regard ex-fetuses as expensive little parasites.
Yes, but did any Catholic Priests weigh in? That’s a game-changer if ever I heard one!
Someone should point out to the Donald that one way to generate lots of new tax revenue would be to tax these politically active groups that hide behind religion. The church sure does like butting it’s nose into everyone’s business, that is up until it comes time to pay for it.
…and sexual playthings; wouldn’t want the supply of new toys to dwindle, now, would they?
:rolleyes: @ taking advice on morals from a Catholic priest.
Banning abortion is the last thing the Republicans want to do, because if they did that, what would they promise the voters to keep them voting R? But it will be interesting to see what excuses they use for not doing so.
To keep protecting their rights to guns, I assume.
And to lower taxes, for potential R voters who don’t care about guns.
Just about every women in america already has access to contraceptives.
Comprehensive sexual education does not prevent pregnanciesor abortion. ““As they are currently designed, sex education programmes alone probably have no effect on the number of young people infected with HIV, other STIs or the number of pregnancies,” said lead author of the review, Dr Mason-Jones.”
Meanwhile there is evidencethat abortion restrictions do result in fewer abortions.
Neither of those sells as well as MURDERED BABIES/FETAL HOLOCAUST!
The Republicans didn’t control the Senate on a reliable basis after the 2001 election, because there was a 50-50 split. That meant they needed the VP to break ties in the Senate, and neither party had control over the committees. The two parties had to work out special arrangements to keep the Senate functioning.
And then the Democrats got a majority in May 2001, when Senator Jeffords left the GOP to sit as an independent and caucus with the Dems.
Nor did the GOP did have a reliable majority on the Supreme Court. Justice O’Connor provided the key vote in Casey to keep Roe in force, and Justices Stevens and Souter, both appointed by Republicans, showed strong independent streaks.
Just realised a typo: should have said “after the 2000 election” in the first line.
Huh. Seems my information is somewhat out of date. Thank you.
Your link goes to a site called MercatorNet.com. Here is a passage from their [“Our Ideals” statement:
](https://www.mercatornet.com/info/our_ideals)
My research shows that this site is operated by The New Media Foundation.[
](http://www.newmediafoundation.org.au/#story)[Their mission statement is:
](http://www.newmediafoundation.org.au/mission/)
Anyway, looking around the MercatorNet site, these folks clearly have an agenda. They write against gay marriage and LGBT people, rant against “gender Marxists”, and feature more than a handful of articles about how evil abortion is.
The article you linked to is directly copied from a Daily Mail article that is actually linked to in the MercatorNet article, although they do omit quite a bit from their re-printing, especially the ending:
So there’s that.
Here is the abstract from your link:
So the idea that making it illegal results in fewer abortions seems like a biased argument, since it seems more likely that making procuring an abortion difficult, if not impossible, has more effect than the legality of the procedure. This is what the last sentence of the abstract is relating: if there is no where to get an abortion, fewer abortions will be performed.
TL; DR: Your first source is biased and their reporting and therefore conclusions are suspect. Your second source doesn’t say what you seem to think it says.
Bo, that’s entirely a hijack. Stick to the topic at hand.