Read this article today...and realized I didn't know this.

[reprobayt]

Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, this information should be known.

This is not like a light switch. Roe made abortion legal across the land, but the absence of Roe does not bring a coast-to-coast ban. It would simply fall to the 50 state legislatures to fashion their own laws, and that is where those favoring and opposing abortion rights would properly have it out to determine how easy or difficult it should be to terminate a life inside the womb from Massachusetts to Texas, from New York to Alabama

Just food for thought and possibly a reasonable debate...not a signal to let loose the dogs of war.

Comments

[twisteddaydream.livejournal.com]

That is actually something I've always been a bit curious about. I mean, obviously, the federal legislation on abortion with Roe v. Wade is better in the event that there are states that would prefer to make abortion illegal. However, like that article points out, there are states that would make more liberal abortion laws and in that situation Roe might almost (stress on the almost) be an impediment to that.

Now, it's been awhile since I've been in American Government so I may get some of this wrong; however, I never did work on the assumption that the repeal of Roe would hae a light switch effect on abortion. And that argument has always bugged me because face it, the government doesn't work that way. Nothing is that immediate or even that absolute. What I have always feared with a repeal of Roe v. Wade was the legislative/political/voting nightmare that it would cause as abortion laws fell back into the hands of state legistlators.

Ultimately, the biggest problem I have with what this article points out has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade or even abortion but instead with the lack of education and the lack of information that the American public deals with these days. It is like no one wants to research anything and no one wants to remember what they were taught in school because some talking head on television tells them what to buy/think/read/say/believe/poop and they do it. (I'll admit that I've been guilty of this myself a time or two.) After all, it's easier to believe Joe Schmo on tv than it is to take the time to properly research something.

And that whole argument would just put me on *my* soapbox so um...I'll stop now. :P

Big Brother

[i-descend.livejournal.com]

The thing that no one ever seems to talk about is the -other- repercussions of Roe vs. Wade. Yes the decision gives women the right to safe and legal abortion, but it did that by saying that citizens of this country have a basic right to personal privacy. It said that the government does not have the right to dictate the choices a person makes about their body, or their life as long as no laws are broken.

A repeal of this decision would be the Supreme Court saying that people do not have this right to privacy. That would undermine any number of laws about government surveillance, monitoring, etc, as well as corporate America. We already have this administration listening in on phone conversations without warrants, and companies sharing information on every product you buy to create a buyers profile to better push products.

As hard as I fight for a woman's right to choose about her body an her life, I fight even harder to defend my right to privacy.

[greg69sheryl.livejournal.com]

This is something we've discussed among ourselves for quite some time. That's why pro-choice organizations should not necessarily panic if Samuel Alito does make it to the Supreme Court and helps the court overturn Roe v. Wade. Several years down the line, it's possible that abortion might remain legal in all of the blue states while it becomes illegal in all the red states.

While this might seem a reasonable circumstance for some, it is not acceptable for those who are determined to preserve abortion rights. So although Dick Durbin's quote may be overstating the issue, his goal is to not allow any circumstance under which women anywhere in this country would be denied abortions, and that is what he was alluding to in his statement.

We do take issue with the columnist's perception that Democratic senators "ganged up" on Judge Alito. When it comes to confirming a nominee for such an important judicial position, it's their job to ask the nominee tough questions about his/her background in order to determine his/her worthiness. Edward Kennedy may have been somewhat zealous in his line of questioning, but ultimately he was just doing his job.