So what if Roe v. Wade is overturned?

Are there any pro-choice Republican voters left? I can’t imagine there are many, and those who remain must put it pretty low on their list of priorities.

Agreed, with RvW gone the Republicans loose their political crutch. There will be a period of adjustment as it returns to the status of a medical procedure. It’s over as an issue.

So what if Roe v. Wade is overturned?

Then we have become an autocratic society.

I don’t think for a minute the rabid pro lifers will be charitable about “those people” in the population that keeps getting pregnant and having those babies and their next rallying cry will be stripping away parental rights or forced sterilization. Yeah that’s a little over the top but honestly saving babies is not their end goal imo.

I knew who the OP was as soon as I did the mouse-over on the front page.

Maybe just the absolute-single-issue abortion voters. But I can see for a lot of those who claim to be with the GOP solely on account of Roe, the “yes but” issue would quickly move to guns, gendered restrooms, bad hombres, rioters, imminent socialism, etc.

Indeed – never mind abortion, there is a further more all-encompassing threat and that even goes beyond those you mention (that are still focused on the immediate one WRT women and reproduction): that against the notion of a constitutionally protected right to privacy per se.

Oh yeah, something doesn’t add up about their so-called concern about the babies.

Either they don’t really believe that babies are people who are being murdered, or they aren’t all that concerned about murder.

A person who truly believed in 40 million child-murders a year would be calling for a general strike, protesting in the streets, going to jail, strapping on suicide vests and driving truck bombs.

I can’t comprehend a person who would judge that a genocide 2x larger than the Holocaust has been in progress since 1973, yet do nothing but exploit it for moral grandstanding and get-out-the-vote operations.

This has always and only been about punishing extramarital sex, and making sure the worst of the punishment falls upon women. Never let anybody tell you different.

Why do you think that? I’ve never known the Republicans to stop pushing their agenda once they accomplish something. If you think their attempts to enact their autocratic, Christianization laws will suddenly stop once Roe v. Wade is overturned, I fear you’re mistaken. Next will come movements to overturn Same Sex Marriage, then maybe contraception, then school prayer, then federal funding for religious schools. There is always another way the liberals are destroying the country that will require Republicans to fundraise, enact legislation, and take over the bench.

You’re a lawyer, I believe. What do you think about a personhood law causing abortion to become illegal nationwide? Do you think a five-member majority of the current Supreme Court (assuming the new nominee is seated) could find that fetuses are persons with a right to life with 14 Amendment protections (or something), barring lethal danger to the mother?

My opinion: it should be overturned. The federal constitution is silent on the issue, so each state should pass its own laws on abortion. The 10th Amendment makes this clear.

Same goes for healthcare and education… there should be no federal involvement, IMO.

Also, a standing army, and the FDA, I guess. Each state should set up its own FDA with its own standards, and if the US needs to go defend or attack something, they can ask the state to send along some militias.

I’d be shocked if the Supreme Court found, without legislation being enacted, that fetuses are persons under the Constitution. Such a ruling has very little precedent, doesn’t fit with current personhood caselaw, and would create a massive amount of upheaval in constitutional law. Much more likely is that they would uphold a state (or federal) law that grants fetuses personhood under the Constitution. That would still open a massive can of worms, but at least the judiciary wouldn’t be re-writing the Constitution.

Fetal personhood laws have been upheld against some challenges, but have consistently been overturned when they infringe upon a woman’s right to choose. If Roe (and all the caselaw after Roe, including Casey, Carhart, etc) is overturned, courts could begin to uphold those laws.

I know it’s pointless, but I will point out, once again, that the Constitution in the 9th Amendment very clearly states that a right does not have to be enumerated to be Constitutionally protected. Silence in the Constitution does not equal inability to protect.

Thanks! I was thinking that, as soon as the new justice is seated, there will be a new fetal personhood law from some state that would go right to that issue. If, say Georgia passed a new fetal personhood law that tried to give fetuses a right to life, do you think that could lead to a nationwide ban?

I seem to recall that Oklahoma was drafting a law that would allow them to punish a resident who went out of state to get an abortion. That, I think, would be assuming they returned to Oklahoma. I can imagine red states passing laws that could punish a woman for leaving a red state to get an abortion and then coming into their state. Because, you know, fuck privacy.

They’d still play up the danger that if Democrats take power, then they will bring back Roe v Wade.

Our country is awash in guns, and yet people vote against Democrats because they are single issue voters that are terrified that Democrats will take their guns away.

Even if abortion is illegal and punishable, it will still draw out the single issue voters that want to keep it that way.

The hypocrisy! The hypocrisy!

Cornmeal mush.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070112153011AAYJpRC&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20vc2VhcmNoP3E9aW5qdW4rYnV0dGVyJmZvcm09RURHRUFSJnFzPVBGJmN2aWQ9MjY3NWMyNTA5YmQ3NDc3NGFhNzJmYzk4OTM3MWQ5NDYmY2M9VVMmc2V0bGFuZz1lbi1VUyZwbHZhcj0w&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKMG9fgp_W01gqb_34JX4zjETQcM_q0fR4oMHJFl4MfK5I0ilgv1yLCywWugS4namwixDf8XOM99xrDDg3Zk3FnefXbc0EcwH6N2aHsWVLqYWXCy9J6ic0YUophqD4yqqDiTqpf5xIEAFbEucVoZk5wuZovcRcLfEAW5l6Iw-bag

I think a lot of women, regardless of their party affiliation, would be opposed to the idea of the government taking control of women’s bodies away from them. (Nancy Reagan, for example, was pro-choice. Now picture the Republican party if it loses every woman voter who’s to the left of Nancy Reagan.)

And the libertarian wing of the Republican party would oppose a ban on abortions as government interference in what they feel should be private affairs. (Although some supposed libertarians abandon their principles over this issue; Ron and Rand Paul have both taken pro-life positions.)

Consider the countries that ban abortion: