Comments on: If Roe Goes

By: Jill

Jill — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:43:19 +0000

Jack, you’re an idiot. And you’re also banned.

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 00:26:13 +0000

Is there anyone that hates the fetus more than you, Jill? I mean seriously, you want them contaminated with drugs, tobacco, and given less rights than a worm. Maybe this is why feminists are unbreeding themselves out of existence.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:53:31 +0000

Ms. Fakename, you’d be surprised. Conservatives go on and on (and on) about Roe. (I always ask them if they’ll shut up about popular sovereigntyand activist judges when the people legalize abortion, and have not yet gotten a response.)

Though Roe hasn’t been doing much to stop states from imposing waiting periods, parental consent laws, and “informed consent” spiels.

By: GumbyAnne

GumbyAnne — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:31:54 +0000

“Obama in the White House, fifty-six plus senate seats (according to 538), I’m not that worried.”

I am praying that this happens but I am not about to count those chickens until they hatch.

By: Ms. Fakename

Ms. Fakename — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:07:14 +0000

Obama in the White House, fifty-six plus senate seats (according to 538), I’m not that worried. Plus, I don’t really buy that Repubs care that much about it. Some do–those doctors didn’t shoot themselves. But not enough do to really make things bad, I don’t think. Between a fifth and a quarter of all pregnancies in this country are electively terminated. We’re the majority, basically. There’s wiggle room on stuff like “partial-birth,” but the abortion fight is more or less over, until ectogenesis works. And, really, until it works cheaply. I’m curious about how much tax money wingnuts would be willing to spend on gestating unwanted fetuses (not curious enough to hope I ever find out), but I bet it’s not very much.

Could be I’m naive, but I’m not that worried about it. Doesn’t get me off the hook for working to make things even better, but the dystopic stuff doesn’t really do it for me.

By: Rebecca (liberal!Rebecca)

Rebecca (liberal!Rebecca) — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:33:44 +0000

* and anti-”judicial-activism” judges, when they have the opportunity to legislate an abortion ban from the bench.

By: Rebecca (liberal!Rebecca)

Rebecca (liberal!Rebecca) — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:12:52 +0000

Mm, good point. (Watch “states’-rights” judges change tack when it’s the state’s right to allow abortion instead of to ban it.)

By: Jill

Jill — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:42:41 +0000

Yeah, there definitely are, and I also think CIANA is unconstitutional. But it’s funny how quickly Supreme Court justices will change their mind on constitutional theory when confronted with a case that challenges their political ideology — see, for example, Raich. That’s part of what I worry about.

By: Rebecca (liberal!Rebecca)

Rebecca (liberal!Rebecca) — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:36:20 +0000

I’m pretty sure that there are also Supreme Court cases (unrelated to abortion) that protect freedom of travel, though. The exact names slip my mind. (I do think CIANA is unconstitutional.)

By: Jill

Jill — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:22:11 +0000

Rebecca is right- a ban on out of state abortions would violate the Interstate commerce clause. The exact clause used to stop segregation on buses and trains in the south.

If states passed the laws banning out-of-state abortions, probably. But whether the federal government would be able to pass such a law — considering that they already tried, except it was only applied to minors — is a whole other question.