If abortion is outlawed....

Factual Questions
41

Because, as a person in it’s own right, it has rights beyond the its status of a chunk of whatever-you-want-to-call-it attached to, and dependant upon, the uterus in which it resides.

Row v. Wade established that a non-viable (for easy legal determination, that was specified as the first two trimesters of pregnancy) was a part of the woman’s body, to keep or expel IN HER OWN JUDGEMENT. If a fetus is determined to be a ‘person’ from conception, then it has the same rights as any other person, and the owner of the uterus in which it resides must respect those rights. At least that is my conclusion; I am not a laywer (Grace of Whatever!), much less one qualified to judge in the extremely rarified atmosphere in which such matters are decided - SCOTUS.

I strongly suggest that those who have never lived before RvW study up REAL fast on the coming nightmare - the NE coast and CA are the only places where there would be sufficient opposition to criminalization to ensure it not be enacted. The “Great Heartland of America”, let alone the former conferderate states, MO, IA, MN, WY, UT, ID, AZ would all be back to 5-7 years, loss of license, etc. - where I was 33 years ago. NM, NV, and CO are too close to call - they might just let their sense of independence keep them from running with the herd.

Good luck, and make sure you always can get to one of the coasts quickly. If the yahoos in Congress (the House is a foregone conclusion, the Senate is getting scary, and the President, Born-Again drunk that he is, would sign in a heartbeat - and if the SCOTUS has already overturned Roe, that would be a foregone conclusion, enact a ban at the national level, make sure you are never more than a week away from Canada. Or, ask your grandmother - the old girls knew a few (highly dangerous) tricks in their day - your mother probably takes RvW as a given, and has never thought about it. Otherwise, no fertile woman would have voted for the current crop of bigots running the US government.

Follow gay rights - they are now where pro-choice was before RvW, and are running into the same mindset we ran into. Vote accordingly - the bigots, assured of reversing Roe, are now ensuring that gays never have to RvW their kids will have to overturn.

Short form: Wake up!

42

make that:

“…never have a RvW…”

43

Oh, so I’m really “out ther”, am I? I just received this as the starting text of a petition:

44

Oh, so I’m really “out there”, am I? I just received this as the starting text of a petition:

45

Not that this is directly related to the subject, but that’s an old E-mail - it’s already happened.

46

The guy is up for re-appointment, however. Not that the petition makes that clear; it’s the same one from two years ago. And not that internet petitions make a damn bit of difference anyway.

47

Point is, yes it is part of their agenda.

48

If you scroll down that snopes cite , you’ll notice that he denies that he won’t prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

49

And in the very next sentence, Snopes notes that Time magazine wrote “In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.”

50

How did they manage to pass the partial birth abortion ban, then? To the best of my knowledge, that’s a federal law that bans at least some abortions. What would be different about a federal law that banned all abortions?

51

Congress can pass whatever they chose, the question is whether or not its enforceable. Judges in various parts of the country (I want to say in New York, California and Nebraska, I’m not sure on what circuits) have already delayed its implementation. I imagine this thing is headed for the Supreme Court.

52

President Clinton vetoed a partial birth abortion law that passed Congress in 1996. On 28 June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Stenberg v. Carhart, affirmed a lower court’s finding against a Nebraska law banning partial birth abortions, and cited past decisions Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 was signed by President Bush, but in September 2004 it was struck down by a federal judge in Nebraska as unconstitutional.

53

Thanks, Walloon.

54

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have never repealed restrictive abortion laws ruled unconstitutional by Roe v. Wade: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

55

Also, three states have laws declaring that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion is to be prohibited: Illinois, Kentucky, and Louisiana.

56

Repealing unenforceable laws is an after-thought. That many have never gotten around to it is not alarming; others may search for the specific Act, but California, years ago, passed an affirmative law establishing the “Consenting adults” concept.
From a legislative viewpoint, that was MUCH easier than trying to hunt down every prohibitive statute that had ever been enacted, and repeal each one. The affirmative statue precluded a determined prosecutor’s hunting down an obsure law and acting on its authority.

The partial-birth law was a trial ballon - the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent - to see how much resistance there was to an outright ban. As long as Roe is the law of the land, any Federal court can declare it unconsitional, and thus null and unenforceable.
Once Roe is declared unconstitutional (our old friends, the SCOTUS), the Federal District Courts (CA is in the Ninth circuit - a notoriously leftie bench (go, 9th!)), will not be able to block any ban, even at he state level - it then will become a state-by-state issue (as noted several times above) until abortion is banned by the Feds, at which time not even the States will be able to (legally) allow it to continue. (note: in SF, personal use of marijuana is, effectively, a “status” issue - it is enforced against minors, adults are not bothered unless they deal in high volume or do something stupid, like blow weed in a cop’s face, or did something else illegal, in which case the marijuana charge is tacked on.

The classic (this was in Oakland, which keeps its over-extended narc unit busy with heroin and crack):

A classic married yuppie couple (by definition, that is still a hetero couple, despite the CA State constitution’s blanket prohibition of any/all discrimination based on a person’s characteristics), both of whom were Lawyers, had a home break-in burglary and called the cops - because they were white yuppies, the cops sent an officer around to take a statement at their home. Upon being invited in, he noticed small canabis plants all over the living room. These are lawyers, for whoever’s sake!. A search warrent was promptly issued based on the officer’s testimony, and executed. They conficated approx. 250 potted pot plants - it seems the couple grew these each year, and gave them to friends a Christmas.
As I said, a true classic (as far as I know, the cops did not after the folks on their gift list).
You do something like that and you will get busted - the smell of burning pot is still fairly common in the Haight, and “water pipes” are openly displayed in store windows (yes, for sale), even though CA has (last I heard - a so-called “paraphernalia” law).
The DEA, OTOH, got a serious felony (read: hard time) conviction for a guy who grew pot (the jury was not allowed to learn that he provided it under the provisions “medicinal marijuana” law CA enacted to allow sale of pot to those who had obtained a DR.'s prescription). I consider that case to an large example of what’s wrong with the US trial system, YMMV.
FTR, there is a discreet storefront a few blocks from me which quietly dispenses such pot. They been there almost a year now, and I know of no legal hassles for them.
Maybe this and the weather is what makes CA so expensive, especially the large urban centers.

57

On what grounds (I can’t accsess your link). If its struck down because of previous findings based on Roe v. Wade, and that case is overturned by a new SCOTUS, then presumably similar laws passed by congress will stand. If it’s struck down because its found that banning abortions is outside the powers of congress and something that needs to be left to the states, independent of Roe v. Wade, then I can rest easy that congress won’t be able to illegalize abortion across the US, and that the worst case scenario is that it will be illegalized in some states.

58

*Sept. 8 (Bloomberg) – A federal judge in Nebraska struck down a U.S. law that makes performing certain late-term abortions a crime, becoming the third judge to rule the measure unconstitutionally fails to protect the health of the mother.

"I declare the ‘Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003’ unconstitutional because it does not allow, and instead prohibits, the use of the procedure when necessary to preserve the health of a woman,’’ Judge Richard Kopf wrote in his 474-page opinion.*

I’d say that’s closer to the first reason you gave.

60

I figured you’d gotten so angry you’d melted. I know I was boiling mad by the end of your post. (Not that I wasn’t angry about this situation before.)

I don’t know about the hot bath part, but I’ve been told about quinine.

Sometimes I look for it at pharmacies, just to see if they carry it. Every time I think to look for it, it is there.

You see, quinine is a treatment for malaria. Who gets malaria in mid-Missouri? Yet every pharmacy around here seems to carry it.

I forsee home remedy abortion websites becoming a very popular search on google if RvW is overturned.

61

One more thing, DantesTenth. Allow me to thank you for putting your ass on the line to help women with no legal control over their own bodies.