Abortion is a big issue for many voters in election - however, when was the last time there was a vote in either house of congress on the issue. Most times it is now Ballot issues (one was defeated in Monatana - I think) and not true legislative issues. So why does it matter where one stands on the issue, unless you think there is going to be a Constitutional Ban - and we all KNOW that is not going to happen.

Abortion is a big issue for many voters in election - however, when was the last time there was a vote in either house of congress on the issue. Most times it is now Ballot issues (one was defeated in Monatana - I think) and not true legislative issues. So why does it matter where one stands on the issue, unless you think there is going to be a Constitutional Ban - and we all KNOW that is not going to happen.

 

Funny you mentioned this. The Supreme Court is supposed to be taking on an issue presently on Abortion. The partial abortion bill that was past many years back has never taken effect as the legal appeal process is going through it's steps. It has now reached the Supreme Court for them to consider whether the LAST time Congress did act on an abortion think can become effective or not.

 

My understanding is that a South Dakota measure was being considered with the purpose of challenging the previous stance of the Supreme Court.

 

With the Supreme Court being involved, the Congress does have some limitations beyond a constitutional amendment on what they can and cannot do.

But for you, that stance is a litmus test for congressional candidates, and yet they have very little say . . .

But for you, that stance is a litmus test for congressional candidates, and yet they have very little say . . .

And as I mentioned, they can't say much until the courts act on the things that they have passed. Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion bill. That changed with the Republicans came into power. So now, that has to go through the legal process.

 

I understand that and do realize that it is not going to happen overnight, despite any wishes that I might have.

 

What I do not want to do, is put someone in there that will work to undo any of the bills that have been passed and going through the legal process.

 

My understanding and I could be 100% wrong here, is that the partial birth bill was put under some sort of injunction and cannot come into play until it moves through this legal process.

 

What has happened with what you are alluding to with my litmus test is that Bush has nominated and the Senate confirmed justices that may very well rule on the side of the partial birth abortion bill and allow it to come into play. If that occurs, then the litmus test worked.

My understanding is that a South Dakota measure was being considered with the purpose of challenging the previous stance of the Supreme Court.

 

 

The voters of South Dakota shot down this proposal yesterday by turning it down in a referendum. This was passed overwhelmingly in the state legislature a couple months ago. I'm surprised.

The voters of South Dakota shot down this proposal yesterday by turning it down in a referendum. This was passed overwhelmingly in the state legislature a couple months ago. I'm surprised.

 

Thanks for the information. I had not heard how it turned out.

The South Dakota ban was easily defeated yesterday.

 

Looks like I was just a bit slow on the draw.

Does that mean that a majority of South Dakotans support murder?

The voters of South Dakota shot down this proposal yesterday by turning it down in a referendum. This was passed overwhelmingly in the state legislature a couple months ago. I'm surprised.

 

I'm not surprised it was defeated. As I understand it the bill was very strict in that it did not include exceptions for rape, incest or a mother's poor health.

Another poster made a good point on the abortion issue acemonia.

 

With the Democrat Congress (Senate, specifically), if one of the Supremes (Court) dies or retires than no way a nominee gets put on the Supreme Court that would have a anti-abortion view.

 

If you are anti-abortion, another reason to look at the views of the candidates on abortion before you cast your vote.

 

As long as Roe vs. Wade stands as is, it limits anything/most that Congress/President can do on the issue.

 

Presently, the strongest political/legal move anti-abortion individuals can do is try and put people that have liked mindsets in the position to put judges on the courts with the liked mindsets.

 

The best pure move is to continue the counseling and advising to pregnant mothers on the dangers of abortions (both physically and emotionally) and the other options besides abortion.

 

As long as Roe vs. Wade stands as is, it limits anything/most that Congress/President can do on the issue.

 

Presently, the strongest political/legal move anti-abortion individuals can do is try and put people that have liked mindsets in the position to put judges on the courts with the liked mindsets.

 

I have just made this point to the kids I teach in my government class.

My school is filled with upperclass conservative kids. They have so many worries about Liberal activist judges. I explained that Judicial activism is not confined to Liberals or Conservatives. If conservative minded judges overturn Roe they will be activist judges. Why do we as a society only see judicial activism as a liberal characteristic? In the 60's when Brown v. Board ending mandatory segregation in schools was passed, it was liberal activism and you won't see people get upset about that. Why do we automatically put Liberal and activist together?

I have just made this point to the kids I teach in my government class.

My school is filled with upperclass conservative kids. They have so many worries about Liberal activist judges. I explained that Judicial activism is not confined to Liberals or Conservatives. If conservative minded judges overturn Roe they will be activist judges. Why do we as a society only see judicial activism as a liberal characteristic? In the 60's when Brown v. Board ending mandatory segregation in schools was passed, it was liberal activism and you won't see people get upset about that. Why do we automatically put Liberal and activist together?

 

That is a well-articulated point. I don't think I have ever heard my conservative brethren define what it is they mean when they refer to judicial "activism." It is a worthy point of discussion.

I have just made this point to the kids I teach in my government class.

My school is filled with upperclass conservative kids. They have so many worries about Liberal activist judges. I explained that Judicial activism is not confined to Liberals or Conservatives. If conservative minded judges overturn Roe they will be activist judges. Why do we as a society only see judicial activism as a liberal characteristic? In the 60's when Brown v. Board ending mandatory segregation in schools was passed, it was liberal activism and you won't see people get upset about that. Why do we automatically put Liberal and activist together?

I don't see the Roe v. Wade decision as being activist. Opinionated yes, activist, no. Same would go if it gets overturned.

I don't see the Roe v. Wade decision as being activist. Opinionated yes, activist, no. Same would go if it gets overturned.

 

No. If Roe were overturned, it would be overturned on the basis of the principles enunciated most recently and articulately in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That case re-articulated the long line of cases that provide for the rationale of WHEN a Court may overturn previous cases. This rationale is the established "stare decisis" in American jurisprudence for overturning prior decisions based upon changed circumstances or changed evidence, and was the rationale used to overturn prior cases in Plessy v. Ferguson and in Brown v. Board of Education.

 

Noone caught it because he did it very deftly, but when John Roberts was being examined by the Judiciary Committee, the Democrats worked very hard to get him to say that he would not overturn Roe v. Wade. And his response was that he would consistently uphold the rule of "stare decisis," including with Roe v. Wade, as enunciated in the Casey case. Since none of the Democrats had read the Casey decision, they really didn't know what he was saying. They do now.

 

I believe the level of technological advances have progressed over the last 31 years to where a good case could be made that the rationale of Roe v. Wade is now outdated, and that under Casey, the decision could be overturned.

For anyone interested, here is the Casey decision.

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833