# If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade ... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 7, 2006, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349 "2006-03-07T06:26:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/81 "2006-03-08T20:36:56Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > No, I was not. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I don’t get it. Did you not say 51% of women in post #69, and did you not cite the CBS poll in support of that in post #71? How does a poll of adults (men + women) support a statement about only women? What am I missing? Are you saying gender doesn’t matter in this type of a poll? Help me out here… ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/82 "2006-03-08T21:15:05Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t get it. Did you not say 51% of women in post #69, and did you not cite the CBS poll in support of that in post #71? Let me make this clear for you. There is a strong consistency among polls in which the specific reasons for abortions are given (Center for the Advancement of Women 2003, Pew Research 2005, or CBS 2006). These polls are consistent whether women are polled or men and women are polled. Between 47% and 51% want all or almost all abortions outlawed. An additional 15% to 17% want abortion laws to be more restrictive than they are now. Different numbers occur when vaguer questions are asked, e.g., “do you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice?” There is also evidence of wide misunderstanding that _Roe v. Wade_ being overturned equals all abortions banned. That is why polls which break down specific reasons for abortions, and ask for specific policies on those reasons, are among the most illuminating. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/83 "2006-03-08T21:27:06Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Let me make this clear for you. Look, you have been anything but clear on this, so don’t throw it on me. I’m being very patient here trying to understand what you’re saying. Let’s see these supposed cites of yours, because I know you can spin this issue a lot of different ways to get different results. You can’t just go an pick out the polls that support your position and ignore the ones which don’t. Polls, like the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 10-12, 2003 in my earlier cite (about 3/4 of the way down) show that a majority of Americans want abortion to be generally legal in the 1st trimeser. In that particular poll the result wwas 66%. That’s a little high, I think, but most polls I’ve seen give results \> 50%. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/84 "2006-03-08T21:40:16Z")
But “generally available” is vague. The more specific the reason/policy choice in the question, the more the polls agree. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/85 "2006-03-08T22:05:20Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > But “generally available” is vague. The more specific the reason/policy choice in the question, the more the polls agree. That’s not it. People are conflicted about abortion, and you have to be very careful how you read the polls. Even that CNN poll I just cited had the very same respondents say they didn’t think abortion should be legal in cases where the mother simply couldn’t afford to have the child. That’s in direct contradiction to most of them wanting abortion to be generally legal in the 1st trimester. The problem, of course, is you can’t realistically draft a law that forbids abortion when the mother is unable to support the child unless you want to end up making abortion “generally illegal” in the first trimester. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/86 "2006-03-09T02:27:10Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > If two-thirds (67%) of American women want abortion laws to be more restrictive than they are now (with 51% wanting to ban all or almost all of them), which way would the overturn of _Roe v. Wade_ “energize the female vote”? Current polls aside (which as mentioned polls can be tricky beasts) consider that it is common for people to not care overly much about something till they lose it. Some women would be energized immediately if Roe was overturned but these are likely women already energized by it. But consider the effects over time as women (or indeed society as a whole) start to deal with the consequences of having abortions unavailable. A world where stories of the 13 year old raped by her uncle is forced to keep the baby. Or a hospital is forced to let a woman die because they cannot terminate the pregnancy that is killing her. Or where Jane Q. Public is now faced with her 15 year old honor roll daughter having a child and dropping out of school to care for it. Or a world where Jane Q. Public’s idealistic son gets arrested for helping drive women to another state where abortions are legal. Or Jane Q. Public being faced with the reality of a law forcing her to tell the guy she despises she is pregnant and allowing him to block her from having an abortion and then dealing with him for the reast of her life as he gets joint custody of her child. Or the story of some middle class girl desperate to terminate her pregnancy dying to some back alley abortion provider. Regradless if any of those occurrences are common or not I think we all know the press well enough to see these sorts of things will be latched on to and played for all they are worth. Some things like your average middle class “good girl” coming home pregnant and forcing the family to deal with it will likely be common. Sooner or later these issues will come home to roost for average people and the pendulum will swing…fast or slow is open to debate but count on it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/87 "2006-03-09T03:25:07Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Sooner or later these issues will come home to roost for average people and the pendulum will swing…fast or slow is open to debate but count on it. Well put. The practice was legalized back in the fucking 50s when conservatives really ruled the roost, culturally speaking, and it happened for a reason. Actually, a lot of reasons, just like the ones cite. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/88 "2006-03-09T03:30:13Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Or a hospital is forced to let a woman die because they cannot terminate the pregnancy that is killing her. Even in the 1950s, all state allowed therapeutic abortions when the woman’s life was threatened. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/89 "2006-03-09T03:44:14Z")
Under current state abortion laws, all states except South Dakota allow therapeutic abortions when the woman’s life or health is threatened. See column four of [this table](http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/90 "2006-03-09T03:55:42Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Even in the 1950s, all state allowed therapeutic abortions when the woman’s life was threatened. I think there might be a gray area here. Consider this part of the anti-abortion bill being floated in South Dakota currently. > [@](#): > > Section 6. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows: > > No person may knowingly administer to, prescribe for, or procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being unless it is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman, or if there is a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. No person may knowingly use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being unless it is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman, or if there is a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. > > Any violation of this section is a Class 5 felony. > > SOURCE: [http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionlaw/a/sdabortionban\_2.htm](http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionlaw/a/sdabortionban_2.htm) So, any doctor who performs an abortion is at risk of committing a felony. I think doctors facing that will be mighty careful before giving a woman an abortion. I do not think it is beyond the realm of possibility that doctors waiting till they are _certain_ that an abortion is indicated for the allowable reasons might well wait too long. What do they do in a situation where they know the pregnancy is complicating matters and may potentially jeopardize the woman’s life? Where is the line drawn? Lots of fun for any doctor who does perform an abortion to be charged with a felony and made to prove their innocence in court (and yes…that is bass ackwards). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/91 "2006-03-09T04:19:24Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Under current state abortion laws, all states except South Dakota allow therapeutic abortions when the woman’s life or health is threatened. See column four of [this table](http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf). It does not matter what current state laws are. We are considering what state laws might be if Roe is overturned and the South Dakota proposed law shows we need not speculate. I forget the state where they tried to put in mandatory notification of the father of the child (and I think he could bar the abortion) but pretty sure Justice Alito thought that was fine. Point is there is little need for speculation of how restrictive these laws might be without Roe. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/92 "2006-03-09T04:24:52Z")
Well, yes it does matter. Those state laws would go in effect if _Roe v. Wade_ is overturned. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/93 "2006-03-09T04:37:57Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Well, yes it does matter. Those state laws would go in effect if _Roe v. Wade_ is overturned. Those state laws are in effect now with Roe still standing. If Roe were overturned tomorrow know what would change? Absolutely nothing…at least not immediately. The laws in your cite are currently “The Law” and will only be changed as states propose new legislation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/94 "2006-03-09T05:05:36Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I forget the state where they tried to put in mandatory notification of the father of the child (and I think he could bar the abortion) but pretty sure Justice Alito thought that was fine. Point is there is little need for speculation of how restrictive these laws might be without Roe. That’s a gross distortion. The PA law was notification only, not approval. There was an exception made for women who had abuse issues. And no, Alito didn’t think it was “fine”. He thought that the people, the legislature and Democratic Governor who signed the bill should be able to enact that law. He didn’t think that, as a judge, it was up to him to overide the will of the people on a matter of public policy such as this. As I said to \*\*Walloon \*\*earlier, let’s stick to the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/95 "2006-03-09T05:25:07Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That’s a gross distortion. The PA law was notification only, not approval. There was an exception made for women who had abuse issues. And no, Alito didn’t think it was “fine”. He thought that the people, the legislature and Democratic Governor who signed the bill should be able to enact that law. He didn’t think that, as a judge, it was up to him to overide the will of the people on a matter of public policy such as this. I said I was unsure if the law allowed the male to prevent the abortion so thanks for clearing that up (although the reasoning of the law to force a woman to tell the guy if he has no recourse eludes me). The dodge for Alito is crap though. While that may have been his stated reason courts overturn the “will of the people” all the time. By that measure Alito would not have supported the majority in _Brown v. The Board of Education_ because it went against the will of the people of that state. Just an example…if you like I can toss out many more where a court basically told a legislature that whatever it was they wrote into law will not be allowed to stand. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/96 "2006-03-09T05:36:17Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That’s a gross distortion. The PA law was notification only, not approval. There was an exception made for women who had abuse issues. And no, Alito didn’t think it was “fine”. He thought that the people, the legislature and Democratic Governor who signed the bill should be able to enact that law. He didn’t think that, as a judge, it was up to him to overide the will of the people on a matter of public policy such as this. > > As I said to \*\*Walloon \*\*earlier, let’s stick to the facts. Good advice. Actually, John, we don’t know what Alito thought or thinks, we only know what he wrote in his opinion. He may have been thinking, “This is great, we’ll really nail those sluts with this one!” when he wrote the opinion, but being a fine legal scholar and all he couched his decision in legal language. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/97 "2006-03-09T05:42:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I said I was unsure if the law allowed the male to prevent the abortion so thanks for clearing that up (although the reasoning of the law to force a woman to tell the guy if he has no recourse eludes me). It eludes me, too, but if you look at the opinion polls, this measure would get very broad support across the country. I think it’s bad public policy, but I think it’s a matter that should be left up to the people, not the courts. It would not prevent one single woman from getting an abortion if she really wanted to. > [@](#): > > The dodge for Alito is crap though. While that may have been his stated reason courts overturn the “will of the people” all the time. By that measure Alito would not have supported the majority in _Brown v. The Board of Education_ because it went against the will of the people of that state. Just an example…if you like I can toss out many more where a court basically told a legislature that whatever it was they wrote into law will not be allowed to stand. No, because a SCOTUS justice looks at things differently from an appellate judge. The arcane abortion decisions are hard to decifer when new ground is being ploughed, and the final [SCOTUS opinion in that case was a 5-4 decision](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey) Hardly an indication that the “correct” answer was obvious. Read the section under “Court’s Opinion” in that link and see if your head doesn’t spin trying to figure out how many justices voted for what. The jurisprudence in that decision is all over the map. [url=]Brown is another matter entirely. This was a difficult decision and a monumental one, but note that the decison was 9-0. This was not a divided court where slightly different weightings could produce different outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/98 "2006-03-09T06:08:31Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It eludes me, too, but if you look at the opinion polls, this measure would get very broad support across the country. I think it’s bad public policy, but I think it’s a matter that should be left up to the people, not the courts. It would not prevent one single woman from getting an abortion if she really wanted to. Prevent a woman from getting an abortion? No. Throw a rather largish obstacle in her way to getting one? Yes. > [@](#): > > No, because a SCOTUS justice looks at things differently from an appellate judge. The arcane abortion decisions are hard to decifer when new ground is being ploughed, and the final [SCOTUS opinion in that case was a 5-4 decision](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey) Hardly an indication that the “correct” answer was obvious. Read the section under “Court’s Opinion” in that link and see if your head doesn’t spin trying to figure out how many justices voted for what. The jurisprudence in that decision is all over the map. I do not really know exactly what the Appellate judges are supposed to consider in cases before them (as in what aspects of the case/law they are meant to review). That said if a state passed a law reinstating, say, slavery are you saying an Appellate judge could not overturn that law? As long as the slavery law was duly passed by the people/legislature/governor the Appellate judge rubber stamps it as ok? And my point was not about whether given decisions are all over the map or how close the votes are but rather that courts do, quite frequently, overturn the “will of the people”. Indeed it is their mission in life as the third branch of government to be able to undo any overreaching by state or federal legislatures. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/99 "2006-03-09T06:25:48Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Prevent a woman from getting an abortion? No. > > Throw a rather largish obstacle in her way to getting one? Yes. Look, we both agree that it’s bad public poilcy, so I’m not going to defend it as public policy. But if the people want it, and it’s not obviously against the consitution (see below), who are you or I to stop it? > [@](#): > > I do not really know exactly what the Appellate judges are supposed to consider in cases before them (as in what aspects of the case/law they are meant to review). That said if a state passed a law reinstating, say, slavery are you saying an Appellate judge could not overturn that law? As long as the slavery law was duly passed by the people/legislature/governor the Appellate judge rubber stamps it as ok? Well, there’s a clear constitutional amendment forbiding slavery, so the courts don’t have any leeway on that issue. My point about Allito as an appellate judge is that it’s very difficult for them to guess what the SCOTUS might decide on abortion matters. Not on whether or abortion can be abolished, as was done in SD, because the SCOTUS has been clear on that. But on issue around the periphery, it can be very unclear. And with the court so divided (5-4 on so many abortion issues), it often just comes down to being whatever O’Conner decides it is since she is the swing vote on the details of abortion law. You seem to be stuck on the fact that Allito decided one way in Casey, but what he had to do was guess, in advance, how O’Conner would eventually rule. This is not a cut and dry issue like slavery or the voting age or whether or not Bush can outlaw non-Christian religions. > [@](#): > > my point was not about whether given decisions are all over the map or how close the votes are but rather that courts do, quite frequently, overturn the “will of the people”. Indeed it is their mission in life as the third branch of government to be able to undo any overreaching by state or federal legislatures. That’s true. But you’re treating all consititutional issues as if they are equally obviouis. They are not. Casey was not obvious. That’s all I’m saying. And the fact that 4 sitting SCOTUS justices would have decided Casey exactly as did Allito proves that. If you ask 50 people to look at the constitution and decide if slavery can be made legal, you’ll get 1 answer: No. If you ask them if it’s OK for one state to require spousal notification (not approval) of abortion as long as there is a provision for cases of spousal abuse you are likely to get 10, 20 or even 50 different answers. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349/100 "2006-03-09T10:03:31Z")
may we not infer from the strange provision of a right (noticce) without a remedy (the father can suck eggs) that something other than an effort to bring men and women together to decide to kill their child? That is to say, as a trespass on the woman’s autonomy such as to rise to the level of an “unreasonable burden” on her right to ant abortion It is obvious that any attempt to vest a veto in the father would be ant unreasonable burden, but the same reasoning is, in a sense, even stronger where the implication is that the woman is essentially to be punished by lifetime opprobrium from a disapproving father, whose entreaties she scorns. Sicne this outcome can only redound to her detriment, and all other outcomes are neutral as to the father’s notiification, the mandate is nothing but a burden on her right. Alito’s willingness to place this burden within the permitted rather than forbidden impositions makes his legal objectivity suspect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/347349.md?page=6)