# Supreme court change will mean overturning Roe vs Wade. Could family planning thru internet help? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 28, 2018, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-change-will-mean-overturning-roe-vs-wade-could-family-planning-thru-internet-help/816910 "2018-06-28T11:31:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2018, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-change-will-mean-overturning-roe-vs-wade-could-family-planning-thru-internet-help/816910/41 "2018-07-03T16:53:59Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > I agree with this. It will be interesting to see however if Democrats attempt to block the nomination. > > Presidents Clinton and Obama had court nominees (Justices Breyer and Kagan) confirmed shortly before midterm elections. > > We’ll see if Schumer has a double standard and says oh, but this time we need to wait. Wow! This is really myopic. It wasn’t Schumer that changed the rules, it was McConnell. He’s the one who said this time we need to wait. Do you really believe your last statement there? I’m utterly amazed. Do you remember the Garland thing at all? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2018, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-change-will-mean-overturning-roe-vs-wade-could-family-planning-thru-internet-help/816910/42 "2018-07-03T17:08:38Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Wow! This is really myopic. It wasn’t Schumer that changed the rules, it was McConnell. He’s the one who said this time we need to wait. … I’m pretty sure he didn’t say that about “this time”. He said that about the Garland nomination, the one shortly before a Presidential election. Here, [this PolitiFact article](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/02/what-mitch-mcconnell-said-about-supreme-court-conf/) might help you understand: > [@](#): > > … McConnell drew a distinction between vacancies during presidential election years and midterm election years. > > … > > A few days later on Fox News Sunday, McConnell said that Senate Republicans are “following a longstanding tradition of not filling vacancies on the Supreme Court in the middle of a presidential election year.” … > > In 2016, McConnell talked about the Senate’s power in an interview with Charlie Rose on PBS. > > “What does advice and consent mean? I think the answer is whatever the Senate says it means at any given point. And we are in a period of senatorial assertiveness. And – but even putting the assertiveness aside, it was never going to be possible to fill a vacancy in the middle of a presidential election year when you’ve got a president going out of office.” > > … > > “This is not 2016. These aren’t the final months of a second-term, constitutionally lame-duck presidency with a presidential election fast approaching. We are right in the middle of this president’s first term,” McConnell said. > > McConnell compared the Kennedy replacement to other Supreme Court confirmations in midterm years, including when Justice Elena Kagan was confirmed in 2010, Justice Stephen Breyer in 1994 and Justice David Souter in 1990. > > “To my knowledge, nobody on either side has ever suggested before yesterday that the Senate should only process Supreme Court nominations in odd-numbered years,” he said. … ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-change-will-mean-overturning-roe-vs-wade-could-family-planning-thru-internet-help/816910/43 "2018-07-04T02:16:45Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m pretty sure he didn’t say that about “this time”. He said that about the Garland nomination, the one shortly before a Presidential election. Here, [this PolitiFact article](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/02/what-mitch-mcconnell-said-about-supreme-court-conf/) might help you understand: Thank you for your condescension, Mr. White Night! Are you concerned that **Silver Lining** can’t defend him-/herself? I’m pretty sure you’re right that McConnell didn’t say that about “this time”. I’m hoping you can connect the dot, though, about whether it’s Schumer or McConnell is being hypocritical here. Hey, there’s another election coming. This might help you understand: [2018 United States elections - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2018) I know the probability is remote, but the Democrats could take over the Senate. Don’t you think the voters should have their say before the president gets to nominate a SCOTUS justice? Scalia died in February. Kennedy resigned in June. I’ll have to fire up the ol’ Excel spreadsheet to see which one is more “shortly before” an election. “Hey, RS, I’ll need that report shortly.” “Sure, boss, I’ll get it to you in 9 months! I’m told that’s ‘shortly’” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-change-will-mean-overturning-roe-vs-wade-could-family-planning-thru-internet-help/816910/44 "2018-07-04T02:24:53Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Thank you for your condescension, Mr. White Night! Are you concerned that **Silver Lining** can’t defend him-/herself? > > I’m pretty sure you’re right that McConnell didn’t say that about “this time”. I’m hoping you can connect the dot, though, about whether it’s Schumer or McConnell is being hypocritical here. > > Hey, there’s another election coming. This might help you understand: [2018 United States elections - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2018) > > I know the probability is remote, but the Democrats could take over the Senate. Don’t you think the voters should have their say before the president gets to nominate a SCOTUS justice? > > Scalia died in February. Kennedy resigned in June. I’ll have to fire up the ol’ Excel spreadsheet to see which one is more “shortly before” an election. > > “Hey, RS, I’ll need that report shortly.” “Sure, boss, I’ll get it to you in 9 months! I’m told that’s ‘shortly’” The issue doesn’t center around “shortly” but around “an election”. Last time, it was a Presidential election. This time, it’s a mid-term. As has already been pointed out, Republicans have had no issues confirming justices during mid-term election years, even in the recent past. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-change-will-mean-overturning-roe-vs-wade-could-family-planning-thru-internet-help/816910/45 "2018-07-04T02:51:39Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The issue doesn’t center around “shortly” but around “an election”. Last time, it was a Presidential election. This time, it’s a mid-term. As has already been pointed out, Republicans have had no issues confirming justices during mid-term election years, even in the recent past. True but never before 2016 had they flat out refused to even debate a confirmation. Never before have they changed the rules so there was no filibuster and it only took 51 votes to confirm. So it’s not like they can argue “things are like they’ve always been.” Why can’t this be a ‘new rule’ as well? ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-change-will-mean-overturning-roe-vs-wade-could-family-planning-thru-internet-help/816910/46 "2018-07-04T11:17:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The issue doesn’t center around “shortly” but around “an election”. Last time, it was a Presidential election. This time, it’s a mid-term. As has already been pointed out, Republicans have had no issues confirming justices during mid-term election years, even in the recent past. Then, why did you use the term “shortly”? Was that an honest attempt at debate? I didn’t use it, **Silver Lining** didn’t use it, you did. Can we agree that nine months before the election (whole children were conceived and born) and eleven months before the new president would be sworn in is not “shortly”? As **Old Guy** mentioned, holding no debates because of an upcoming election was a new thing, so it seems wrong to blame Schumer for trying to hold McConnell to some sort of consistent position. This election may be similarly consequential if the Senate switches hands. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-change-will-mean-overturning-roe-vs-wade-could-family-planning-thru-internet-help/816910/47 "2018-07-04T14:28:22Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > One day abortion may be frowned like say Jim Crows laws are now, but that’s in the future. I really really hope not. My plan is to see that that dystopia never comes to be. > [@](#): > > Until then, there is nothing wrong with adoption. Sure there is - adoption comes with all sorts of restrictions. There’s an insistence that the couple make a certain amount of money, some agencies require each child have his/her own room (I recall a point where me and my three sisters all shared one room, and I had one of my sister’s as a roommate until they all moved out), some restrict based on religion, marital status, sexual orientation… if you don’t make the top grade either you are barred from adopting, or you’re only offered “special needs” kids nobody else wants. Then there’s the problem of birth parents who don’t want to be re-contacted suddenly having to deal with a stranger showing up on their doorstep demanding a relationship that doesn’t exist. Or adopted kids suddenly being confronted with a birth parent they want nothing to do with. Sure, there are lots of heartwarming reunion stories but in reality those meetings don’t always work out so well long-term, and not everyone wants their life turned upside down by what is really a complete stranger. Don’t get me wrong - I do think adoption is an \*option \*and it often turns out well, but let’s not sugar-coat it. Like anything else involving human beings adoption occasionally goes really, really wrong. Most people I’ve known who were adopted were happy with their lives, but not all of them. On a certain level, though, adoption as presented by “pregnancy crisis centers” is a transfer of babies from poor people to rich people, from those without privilege or status or power to those that have all three. > [@](#): > > If additional workers are needed a work visa can be granted. This, to me, is a more rational plan than forcing women to bear children they don’t want. > [@](#): > > Getting drugs from for foreign nation which may not pass our standards is risky So is pregnancy and childbirth. If you were really serious about reducing risk to women you’d keep abortion legal, because legal abortions are safer than pregnancy and childbirth. That way, only women willing to assume the risks of giving birth would have to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2018, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-change-will-mean-overturning-roe-vs-wade-could-family-planning-thru-internet-help/816910/48 "2018-07-04T14:32:38Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > Since no one likes the act of an abortion, and human life is in the balance, I think the suggestion that one day abortion may be frowned like Jim Crows laws is more likely. On the other hand, quite a few of us think forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want, or worse yet, poses a significant risk to her, is another bad thing we very much don’t want. Since it’s two bad choices maybe that should be left up to the person who is going to have to live with that choice? You know - the woman who is pregnant and doesn’t want to be pregnant. Or whose pregnancy is very high risk and continuing might leave her existing children motherless and her significant other a widow/er. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-change-will-mean-overturning-roe-vs-wade-could-family-planning-thru-internet-help/816910.md?page=2)