May 10th 2004, 09:07 PM #1
Supreme Court is NOT "just one vote away" from overturning abortion rights for women.
Seems Kerry is trying to stir up abortion-rights supporters with some misinformation.
Abortion-rights activists point to a Supreme Court decision in 2000 striking down a Nebraska law against so-called "partial birth" abortions. That case, Stenberg v. Carhart, was indeed decided by a single vote, 5-4. But the fourth dissenting vote in that case was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who went out of his way to write that he did not question the basic holding in Roe.
Thomas wrote a dissent, joined by Rhenquist and Scalia, saying of Roe: "that decision was grievously wrong." But Kennedy did not join that dissent. Instead, he wrote his own saying, "The holding of Casey, allowing a woman to elect abortion in defined circumstances, is not in question here." And Casey reaffirmed Roe.
May 10th 2004, 09:51 PM #2
Yes, this does appear to be disinformation. They're one vote away from a certain third trimester restriction, which does not affect Roe Vs Wade at all. Shame on the disinformation perpetrators. It's a bogus scare tactic.Anything is possible, unless it isn't.
May 10th 2004, 11:25 PM #3
I don't know. One vote? Sandra Day O'Connor being replaced by another Clarence Thomas could be dangerous for Roe v Wade. It would fall entirely on Kennedy where that case would end. But Renquist retiring? He could only be replaced by, at worst, another Renquist. And mind you, there is no Constitutional mandate that says there must be 9 justices. I don't know whether it'd be possible to get a justice through the Senate right now at all, regardless which party is in the White House."I am an alien spouse of female military personnel en route to the United States under public law 271 of the Congress." - Capt. Henri Rochard
May 11th 2004, 03:32 AM #4
I think Jimmy has a good point. Democrats seem to want to block any nominated judicial candidate, and if Kerry wins I am sure the Republicans will return the favor.Meh.
May 11th 2004, 04:54 AM #5Originally posted by Ryokan
May 11th 2004, 04:57 AM #6Originally posted by Love-Warrior
Humph, whaddya expect. The Dems practise disgusting disinformation when they spruik forth nonsense that abortion involves only the mother -- ignoring the other person who is scalded alive or sucked to pieces.
These mendacious life-hating pro-abortionists make me wanna :puke:
May 11th 2004, 08:20 AM #7Originally posted by Socrates"I am an alien spouse of female military personnel en route to the United States under public law 271 of the Congress." - Capt. Henri Rochard
May 11th 2004, 12:05 PM #8
It's important to bear in mind that Roe-V-Wade only restricts our ability to restrict elective abortions in the first trimester(although, this is when most abortions take place.).
Honestly, it's time to reassess whether politically pursuing making first term abortions illegal is worthwhile at all. We can still try to extend the legal personhood to fetuses after the first trimester and there are other sorts of measures that we could pursue that would prevent such pregnancies.
There are also a host of measures that we could support that would help save lives in the under-developed world and I'm willing to bet that we could be more effective in making such reforms if we were able to garnish bipartisan support.
The extreme partisanship over abortion right now stems from pro-lifers determination to make all elective abortions illegal again.
By Darth Executor in forum Civics 101Replies: 85Last Post: April 29th 2007, 03:31 AM
By Amazing Rando in forum Civics 101Replies: 77Last Post: September 27th 2005, 05:42 PM
By Minnesota in forum Civics 101Replies: 20Last Post: June 21st 2005, 11:59 AM
By The Laughing Man in forum Civics 101Replies: 153Last Post: July 29th 2003, 12:35 AM