Will Anthony Kennedy’s replacement really end Roe v. Wade?

[TomSea]

BlogsAbortion, Commentary, Politics - U.S. Thu Jun 28, 2018 - 5:50 pm EST
Will Anthony Kennedy’s replacement really end Roe v. Wade?

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 28, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Wednesday’s bombshell news that a pro-life president will finally get to replace the atrocious Anthony Kennedy with a Supreme Court justice committed to the Constitution has supercharged pro-life imaginations, and rightly so. After four decades and 60 million dead babies, overturning Roe v. Wade is long overdue.

But as we prepare for the fight of our political lives over President Donald Trump’s next nominee, it’s critical that pro-lifers keep in mind not only the pitfalls lurking in the confirmation process, but also the uncomfortable truth that the future justice might not be the one we have to worry about.

If there’s one thing that should be seared into every pro-lifer’s consciousness by now -- after pro-abortion GOP nominees Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, John Paul Stevens, or David Souter – it’s to never settle for “stealth nominees,” ostensibly-qualified jurists without a paper trail on hot-button issues that could invite controversy during confirmation hearings.

Read more at: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/will-anthony-kennedys-replacement-really-end-roe-v.-wade

This is an emotional topic for many, let's hope people can discuss such subjects in a civil tone and without feeling the need to bash religion.

[Jazzhead]

Roe v. Wade won't be overturned.  Not if Trump nominates a conservative, at least.   The decision, for better or for worse, has been the law of the land for over 40 years.   Every woman in America of child bearing age has had the Constitutional right to choose whether or not to reproduce for her entire adult life. 

Given that reality,  overturning the decision would be the height of "activist judging", substituting the Justices' preferences for that of the peoples'.

What you probably will see, however, is greater latitude provided to state legislatures to restrict abortions consistent with the foundational right remaining intact.   Such as, for example, abortion bans after 20 weeks.    The situation will be something like that with the Second Amendment - a significant amount of regulation/restriction will be permitted.   Think Heller, but in the abortion context.   D.C. can't ban handguns because that would deny the fundamental right of self-defense in the home.  But it could require licensure and registration.   Similarly,  Pennsylvania could ban abortion after 20 weeks except to save the life of the mother, because for the first 20 weeks the woman had the meaningful ability to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy. 

[Jazzhead]

An interesting dichotomy is the degree of regulation of a Constitutional right demanded  by liberals vs. conservatives.   With respect to the Second Amendment,  liberals want to regulate/restrict right up to the Constitutional line, while conservatives want the gun right to be freely exercisable as much as possible.  Just the opposite for the abortion right -  liberals will resist most all restrictions, while conservatives want to regulate/restrict right up to the Constitutional line.   

[HoustonSam]

Every woman in America of child bearing age has had the Constitutional right to choose whether or not to reproduce for her entire adult life. 

Roe v. Wade does not protect a woman's right to choose whether or not to reproduce.  It shields a woman from the consequences of how she exercises that choice.  Her right to choose whether or not to reproduce can be freely exercised in the same way we argue that a man can exercise that right when we discuss financial responsibility for a child - don't have intercourse.

[Oceander]

In a word: no. 

[HoustonSam]

An interesting dichotomy is the degree of regulation of a Constitutional right demanded  by liberals vs. conservatives.   With respect to the Second Amendment,  liberals want to regulate/restrict right up to the Constitutional line, while conservatives want the gun right to be freely exercisable as much as possible.  Just the opposite for the abortion right -  liberals will resist most all restrictions, while conservatives want to regulate/restrict right up to the Constitutional line.

I suspect most people who call themselves "conservatives" want to outlaw abortion, not regulate up to a fictional Constitutional line.  The Constitution makes no mention of abortion, reproduction, trimesters, or a "right to choose."

The dichotomy reflects a belief that owning a gun poses no threat to anyone, while abortion ends a human life.  Personally I find that distinction absolutely clear and overwhelmingly compelling.

[Right_in_Virginia]

In a word: no.

Sorry to agree, but I do.

[Jazzhead]

I suspect most people who call themselves "conservatives" want to outlaw abortion, not regulate up to a fictional Constitutional line.  The Constitution makes no mention of abortion, reproduction, trimesters, or a "right to choose."

The dichotomy reflects a belief that owning a gun poses no threat to anyone, while abortion ends a human life.  Personally I find that distinction absolutely clear and overwhelmingly compelling.

A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right.   It doesn't matter if the right exists by reason of the plain text of the document, or the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.  That's simply a fact, and the law. 

What fascinates me is the attitude of both liberals and conservatives towards Constitutional rights.  It's fundamentally hypocritical.   Conservatives worship the gun right and despise the abortion right.  Liberals view the abortion right as sacrosanct, and deem the gun right illegitimate.   Conservatives fight the abortion right by seeking to regulate and restrict it right up the Constitutional line,  but threaten to shoot peace officers if the state suggests they register their guns.   Liberals adopt a similar hostile attitude regarding the gun right, and claim the sky is falling if the state so much as requires a mother-to-be to look at a pamphlet. 

Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights.  They exist to protect the rights of individuals vis a vis the state.   Those of you who demand the right to keep your guns secretly hidden from prying government eyes ought to have sympathy with the notion that the State cannot demand a woman reproduce against her will.

But of course, you don't.  Your rights are crucial. A woman's?  Not so much.  You say an abortion ends a human life.  That is a moral perspective you are certainly entitled to.  But it not the right of the State to impose it on others. 

Yes,  the gun right and the abortion right are regular themes of mine on this board.  Only by understanding the position of the other side can we understand that ALL Constitutional rights are about protecting you and me,  and the women in our lives too, against government tyranny.     

[thackney]

A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right.   It doesn't matter if the right exists by reason of the plain text of the document, or the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.  That's simply a fact, and the law. 

What fascinates me is the attitude of both liberals and conservatives towards Constitutional rights.  It's fundamentally hypocritical.   Conservatives worship the gun right and despise the abortion right.  Liberals view the abortion right as sacrosanct, and deem the gun right illegitimate.   Conservatives fight the abortion right by seeking to regulate and restrict it right up the Constitutional line,  but threaten to shoot peace officers if the state suggests they register their guns.   Liberals adopt a similar hostile attitude regarding the gun right, and claim the sky is falling if the state so much as requires a mother-to-be to look at a pamphlet. 

Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights.  They exist to protect the rights of individuals vis a vis the state.   Those of you who demand the right to keep your guns secretly hidden from prying government eyes ought to have sympathy with the notion that the State cannot demand a woman reproduce against her will.

But of course, you don't.  Your rights are crucial. A woman's?  Not so much.  You say an abortion ends a human life.  That is a moral perspective you are certainly entitled to.  But it not the right of the State to impose it on others. 

Yes,  the gun right and the abortion right are regular themes of mine on this board.  Only by understanding the position of the other side can we understand that ALL Constitutional rights are about protecting you and me,  and the women in our lives too, against government tyranny.     

Abortion right?  Claiming the constitutional right to commit murder is insane.  Even if it is a matter of convenience.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Not without a constitutional amendment.

If we start overturning prior USSC decisions willy nilly that would create absolute chaos in the courts where decisions are overturned on a dime every few years.

[Jazzhead]

Abortion right?  Claiming the constitutional right to commit murder is insane.  Even if it is a matter of convenience.

Murder?  C'mon, that's your particular moral values in overdrive.  During the first trimester,  a fetus has no separate existence apart from the mother.   At such time, the moral status of the fetus is a matter of individual conscience.   

And you entitled to your moral values,  including to hyperventilate by using the term "murder"   But what you don't have is the right to demand the state to impose your moral values on others.   

[Restored]

Abortions were legal before Roe V Wade. What Roe did was make "abortion on demand" legal. From there, it escalated to "make abortions affordable by excluding clinics from medical rules" and "invent a baby insecticide".  The argument when abortion was legalized was "They will be rare because we have The Pill". What they didn't count on was "People are stupid".

[Free Vulcan]

While I don't think Roe v. Wade will be completely overturned, it is possible that they will at least allow the fetal heartbeat bills, like Iowa's, to stand based on biology and science. That alone would be a huge victory.

[Free Vulcan]

A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right.   It doesn't matter if the right exists by reason of the plain text of the document, or the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.  That's simply a fact, and the law. 

What fascinates me is the attitude of both liberals and conservatives towards Constitutional rights.  It's fundamentally hypocritical.   Conservatives worship the gun right and despise the abortion right.  Liberals view the abortion right as sacrosanct, and deem the gun right illegitimate.   Conservatives fight the abortion right by seeking to regulate and restrict it right up the Constitutional line,  but threaten to shoot peace officers if the state suggests they register their guns.   Liberals adopt a similar hostile attitude regarding the gun right, and claim the sky is falling if the state so much as requires a mother-to-be to look at a pamphlet. 

Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights.  They exist to protect the rights of individuals vis a vis the state.   Those of you who demand the right to keep your guns secretly hidden from prying government eyes ought to have sympathy with the notion that the State cannot demand a woman reproduce against her will.

But of course, you don't.  Your rights are crucial. A woman's?  Not so much.  You say an abortion ends a human life.  That is a moral perspective you are certainly entitled to.  But it not the right of the State to impose it on others. 

Yes,  the gun right and the abortion right are regular themes of mine on this board.  Only by understanding the position of the other side can we understand that ALL Constitutional rights are about protecting you and me,  and the women in our lives too, against government tyranny.     

It was a 'right' declared by the courts. It can be just as easily undone by the courts. What the hell are you talking about?

[Restored]

Murder?  C'mon, that's your particular moral values in overdrive.  During the first trimester,  a fetus has no separate existence apart from the mother.   At such time, the moral status of the fetus is a matter of individual conscience.   

And you entitled to your moral values,  including to hyperventilate by using the term "murder"   But what you don't have is the right to demand the state to impose your moral values on others.   

All crimes are based on morals so your argument is irrelevant. You cannot use the argument "It isn't quite human" because it is the logic people used with slaves. Of course the child in the womb is a human.  The question is "When is it acceptable to kill another human?".

[TomSea]

All of the checks on leftism are on this with some people.

Check, believes in infertile marriage that can not create human life....

Check, believes in reproduction rights....that destroys life

Check, "Muslims are our friends and neighbors",

Check, lenient on immigration.

Check, criticizes Christians.

This is all anathema to traditional American values.

Almost everyone who defends gay rights so vociferously, is almost always very cold-hearted per the rights of the unborn.

[Free Vulcan]

Murder?  C'mon, that's your particular moral values in overdrive.  During the first trimester,  a fetus has no separate existence apart from the mother.   At such time, the moral status of the fetus is a matter of individual conscience.   

And you entitled to your moral values,  including to hyperventilate by using the term "murder"   But what you don't have is the right to demand the state to impose your moral values on others.   

A child up to 2 years old is completely dependent on their mother. There is however no part of a woman's body that has different DNA than her, with it's own heartbeat, that grows from conception into another completely separate being that ultimately leaves her body to grow up on it's own.

Chop off your arm and see how that works for you if you think otherwise. Your beliefs are fairy tale, not science.

[Oceander]

A child up to 2 years old is completely dependent on their mother. There is however no part of a woman's body that has different DNA than her, with it's own heartbeat, that grows from conception into another completely separate being that ultimately leaves her body to grow up on it's own.

Chop off your arm and see how that works for you if you think otherwise. Your beliefs are fairy tale, not science.

Utter hogwash. Adopted infants don’t die simply because they’re no longer with their birth mother.

[Cyber Liberty]

It was a 'right' declared by the courts. It can be just as easily undone by the courts. What the hell are you talking about?

There's a ratchet:  Abortion on demand started out in the early times in a pregnancy, it's gone to legal with a baby half-way out of the birth canal, which is where it will stay if the resident leftist has his way.  Likewise, there is a ratchet on the second Amendment, where more and more restrictions are applied, and that's where laws will stay too.

There is no "going back," even though technology has moved forward and babies are viable months before the due data, while more and better crime studies prove fewer restrictions on firearms equal less crime.

Liberals don't care, they don't want more life and safety, they want more control over the lives that are already here.  Lying about their intent is required to keep the fiction alive.

[Free Vulcan]

Utter hogwash. Adopted infants don’t die simply because they’re no longer with their birth mother.

And preemies don't die simply because they come out of the womb before 9 months.

[guitar4jesus]

Sorry to agree, but I do.

Aye.

[Jazzhead]

A child up to 2 years old is completely dependent on their mother. There is however no part of a woman's body that has different DNA than her, with it's own heartbeat, that grows from conception into another completely separate being that ultimately leaves her body to grow up on it's own.

Chop off your arm and see how that works for you if you think otherwise. Your beliefs are fairy tale, not science.

This isn't about my "beliefs".   It is about your beliefs - and your apparent desire to impose them by force of government on others. 

A woman has the right to choose whether to reproduce.  That choice isn't unlimited, and can (like the gun right) be made subject to reasonable regulation.  But her right of self-determination is guaranteed by the Constitution, just as is your right of self-defense.   

[Jazzhead]

Liberals don't care . . .  they want more control over the lives that are already here.

You've got to be kidding. 

It ain't liberals who want to force woman to reproduce. 

Persuade others of your superior morality.  Don't demand the government impose your morality on others.   

[Oceander]

And preemies don't die simply because they come out of the womb before 9 months.

Very good, grasshopper.  Are you going to pay out of your own pocket to support all the preemies?

No, I didn’t think you would.  You’d prefer to use the threat of state-sanctioned violence to make others fulfill your virtues. 

[skeeter]

You've got to be kidding. 

It ain't liberals who want to force woman to reproduce. 

Maybe you should rephrase this. At issue is what happens after the 'reproduce' part has already occurred.