If elected, would "W" REALLY outlaw abortion?

Great Debates
1

  1. Is George W. Bush REALLY pro-Life? His vague comments at the first debate about appointing justices makes me think that while he panders to the far-Right on this issue, his comments on not outlawing the abortion pill makes me think deep down he is really pro-Choice. I’m guessing he would be a “Pro-Life but there’s not much I can do about it” President hence his “bringing people together/ common ground” remarks.

  2. Even if he IS really pro-Life, would he really try to appoint a pro-Life SC Justice? Wouldn’t overturning Roe v Wade be political sucide?

  3. Even if he does make this appointment, he would still need Congress to approve the appt. Plus, it would take a while for a case involving Roe v Wade to come up, right? What I am saying is it would take YEARS for Roe v Wade to get overturned.

Or could he try to pass a law outlawing abortion in Congress, then have it challenged in the Supreme Court, where his cronies would uphold the law, thus overturning R v W?

  1. If abortion is made illegal in the U.S. by Bush, wouldn’t there be rioting in the streets?
2

Yes, I believe there would be rioting.
I don’t think he could outlaw it.
Wouldn’t the states then just decide for themselves?
I read he wants to give a tax bonus for adopting to help cut down the nubmer of abortions.

3

What will happen is that as the liberal justices get older and retire they will be replaced by justices named by Bush. Since they will be strict constructionist and abortion is not in the constitution they will be likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Senate will most likely confirm them as it is controlled by Republicans. When this happens states will begin passing laws designed to test the new court. These will be on such issues as partial birth, parental requests, waiting periods. Each of these cases will bring about a new understanding to replace Roe v Wade.
The states will then be free to set their own limits on abortions. Some will outlaw all, others will allow all, most will be somewhere in between allowing most first trimester abortions. This process will take 6-10 years.
It will not be political suicide nor will there be rioting in the streets as most people do not care about this issue.
In the end the voters will decide if they want abortion in their states which is way a democracy is supposed to work.

4

Doesn’t matter what he thinks, personally.
He doesn’t write legislation.
He can’t veto the Republicans who helped him get in. Not if he has any other plans.

5

He has basically said he won’t make an effort to change the law because so many Americans feel it should be kept legal.

As far as whether the poor should be entitled to a government paid abortion, that might be overturned. So, these people will either need a state entitlement or to get off their duffs and work or borrow the few hundred dollars needed to pay for an abortion.

As long as we are entitling things, how bout breat implants? C’mon, who’s with me on this?

6

No he hasn’t. (can you provide a cite?)

He HAS said (in the debates) that he realizes that “good people can disagree on this topic” (his words)…that he “wouldn’t use a litmus test” (again…his words), but that he would appoint strict constructionists to the SCOTUS…

Whether Bush actually CAN affect abortion law in the U.S. was covered in an earlier thread.

7

I keep hearing about government paid abortions. I’ve never actually known of one, though, despite volunteering as a patient escort at a women’s clinic. I know that the government DID pay $10 for the antibiotic, but it didn’t pay for anything else. Just what are government paid abortions? I couldn’t get an abortion when I was in Spain, while my husband was stationed there, even though my health was threatened. I want to know just how many “government paid” abortions there are, and if these are elective abortions, or if they’re done for serious health reasons.

8

He said this repeatedly during the Republican primaries – that was his standard sound-bite on the subject. Do you really think the republicans would let a right wing looney on the ticket?

I’ll admit, his web site is a little confusing:

So, he is pro-life, at least morally, but clearly the legistlation he supports isn’t intended to ban a woman’s right to choose, although he doesn’t think this should be a federal guarantee for those who can’t afford an abortion, except in the case of rape incest or the life of the mother. Clearly the wording here is an attempt to please everyone, but based on his record in Texas I seriously doubt he would flip flop on his basic stand or waste political capital on such a fruitless effort.

9

Oh REALLY? Don’t tell that to my wife!

With all due respect, you sound like either a pro-Lifer or a man!

10

I couldn’t find exact numbers but…

from http://208.49.232.53/Issues/Briefs/1217/

"Background

When abortion was legalized in 1973 after the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, the procedure was covered by Medicaid and was therefore available to low-income women. But in 1979, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) sponsored an amendment to the annual Labor/Health and Human Services Appropriations bill which prohibited use of federal funds to pay for abortions. After the Hyde Amendment was signed into law, Medicaid benefits for low-income women no longer covered abortion. In addition, health plans for federal employees, military personnel, and women in federal prisons ceased paying for abortion procedures. In 1981, the Hyde Amendment was revised to allow Medicaid to cover abortions that were deemed necessary to save the life of the mother, and in 1993 the law was further relaxed to allow federally- funded abortions in cases of rape and incest. Several states resisted the new exceptions to the Hyde Amendment, but were ordered to comply by federal courts even if the state’s laws on abortion was more restrictive than the federal law."

11

So wait a minute – you mean Carter, a democrat, signed a law which banned all federal funding for abortion, and Reagan, a republican, signed a law that gave an exception in the case of the life of the mother?

Ack, I’ve ended up the parallel universe again!

12

<cough> Ronald Reagan <cough>

BTW you seem to be suggesting that because Dubya does not propose any LEGISLATION outlawing abortion, that he is less than pro life. If Dubya has a goal of overturning Roe, NO legisaltion would do that…as has been said before, he would have to appoint enough “strict constructionist” jurists to the SCOTUS …AND the SCOTUS would have to re visit Roe…AND vote to overturn it…essentially throwing it back to the states

As has been discussed before…there are several steps (including nominee confirmations by the Senate) before such a scenario could ever happen.

13

Ugly Truth:
Your wife does not constitute most people.

14

Molly Ivins said (I believe it was in Shrub) that Bush favors a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, but that “he doesn’t say like to say this in front of large audiences.” Of course, Molly Ivins is hardly an unbiased source.

15

I think this is the first time I have been able answer someone else’s question before it was too late… anyway…

Lynn Bodoni:

As a matter of fact there are goverment paid abortions and they are not quite as rare as some would lead you to believe.
Warning this probably only applies to Califnoria, but what do I know
When I said goverment I meant state goverment, at least I think so. Two of my friends that had been going out for a while found out that the girlfriend was preggers but they did not have any money to pay for the abortion. So they went to the clinic anyway and it turns out that if you are low-income they will pay for it. When I say “they” I mean the State of California (I am not ABSOLUTELY positive though, what I am positive about is that is was a “goverment” agency because there was a whole bunch of goverment crap involved, i.e. meeting with social workers, filling out goverment forms, etc…). So they got a free abortion and free check-ups and free medication that was needed afterwards. Overall, about $2000 I believe. The hitch is that she was under 18, he was 20, so I am not sure if it has to do with age or if anyone who has zero money can go get one.

Oh, and this is to jmullaney,

I am not sure what kind of experience you have with abortions, but I know around here, Bay Area of California, it costs in the thousands for an abortion. There are pre-check-ups, then the procedure itself, and then the post-check-ups, plus medication afterwards, if needed. The only way I can think of getting an abortion for a “few hundred dollars” is the handy home abortion kit (sarcastic) or maybe in a back-alley done by a guy named Dr. I-Am-Going-To-F-You-Up.

And finaly, to puddleglum:
I do not kow where you live, or what your experience is, but I can not imagine that “most people do not care about this issue.” All of the people in my political classes and all the women I am close with (friends, relatives, friends of relatives, etc…) care about this issue very much. According to them, they are not worried about it for themselves, per se, but rather the whole concept of goverment telling them what to do with their bodies, at least this is what they tell me. In fact I would like to see some proof that “most people do not care about this issue,” because I simply can not believe that. A poll or interview or something along those lines will be enough, thanks.

-N

16

Strider – I started a thread in GQ on the cost of an abortion. The first number that popped up is akin to what I remember being told during sex ed – $300 dollars. Of course, that was ten years ago.

San Fran is the most expensive place to live in the country so I wouldn’t be surprised it cost a lot more there. If you have money, expect doctors to gouge as a general rule.

Move somewhere where there is inexpensive health care, like, oh I don’t know, Texas for example. :wink:

17

If I had time I’d find the link, but I think I read this in Salon. When Reagan was doing his 11th hour VP search–literally in the hours before the convention–the final decision came to Bush Sr. renouncing his pro-choice stance. Obviously they knew that a pro-choice ticket of any sort couldn’t get a good chunk of the Repub votes. Gotta wonder, especially since Shrub seems to be an even more inarticulate clone of his dad, how much of his stance is, dare I say, pandering? I mean really, doing the same thing they villify Gore for?

18

I don’t know anyone who would argue that Dubya is as ardently “pro life” as say Gary Bauer, Ronald Reagan, Alan Keyes or other “social conservatives”…

Likewise…current rhetoric aside, Al Gore did describe himself as “pro life” in the past…

Much like the “no litmus test” stuff coming out of their mouths, there is not a whole lot of honesty in either of their positions on this issue.

19

As puddleglum has pointed out, Bush’s main effect on the legality of abortion will, most likely, be accomplished through his Supreme Court appointments. Since, IIRC, he’s stated his preference for justices like Scalia and Thomas, it’s a safe bet that he’d appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, given the opportunity.

As puddleglum also pointed out, an overturning of Roe would effectively put the issue back in the hands of the states, which would mean that abortions would, soon thereafter, be legal some places, but not in others.

Whether that’s the way democracy is supposed to work is more debatable. I’m glad issues regarding freedom of speech, religion, etc. aren’t decided on a state-by-state basis. Some would feel that the right to an abortion belongs in that rarefied zone, others disagree.

20

Let me rephrase that. To say nobody cares about this issue is ridiculous. The abortion debate is probably one of the top 5 issues on most American’s agenda.