Roe v. Wade: How likely is a reversal?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
So the "balance of power" is just an illusion.

There is no balance of power with the Supreme Court.

[Rex Little]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
As for abortion rights, that decision is an intensely *personal* one and should be up to the prospective parents and no one else. They're the ones who will bear the price of whatever decision is made, not some Joe or Jane Public politician.

Even though I'm pro-choice, I have to disagree with this. Anti-abortion laws are based on the premise that the fetus has as much right to have its life protected as you or I do. If you buy that premise, the quoted statement is like saying that murder concerns no one except the murderer and the victim's family.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Was there ever a time when some politician *wasn't* trying to stack the Supreme Court (or, for that matter, any federal court) with some damn right-wing judges or screwball left-wing judges?

Yes... until the 1930s, I believe, it was a totally unpolitical process. It was then that FDR wanted to put people that agreed with his policies on the bench, and since he was around so long, he was able to.

So the "balance of power" is just an illusion.

How so? Part of the balance of power is that the SC is appointed by the President and confirmed by the legislature. That allows an undemocratic body to have some indirect ties to the people.

[Zkribbler]

The Roe Court said two important things:

First, that before a fetus is human life, the State has no legitiate interest in regulating it. And thus, at that point, the mother's right to privacy is paramount.

Almost eveyone would agreed to this first proposition. Even most people who believe human life begins at conception, would concede that, before conception, the State has no legitimate interest.

Second, the Supreme Court held that human life begins at viability, that is, when the fetus can survive outside the womb. At the time Roe was decided, that was at the beginning of the third trimester.

It always appeared to me that this portion of the Court's reasoning was somewhat arbitrary. However, the belief of those who say life begins at conception appears to me to be somewhat speculative. As DinoDoc's table above shows, most American's do buy into either theory but instead look at a variety of factors.

So, while Roe will not be outright overturned, I could see that point in time during the pregnancy at which the State is permitted to regulate abortions might be moved.

[Drake Tungsten]

Second, the Supreme Court held that human life begins at viability, that is, when the fetus can survive outside the womb. At the time Roe was decided, that was at the beginning of the third trimester.

If this is true, then how are partial-birth abortions legal? Did a later case change the viability standard of Roe? Hook a brotha up wit some case law...

edit: Of course, just because the state has the right to regulate abortions during the third trimester doesn't mean it actually will. I think I might have just answered my own question.

[DinoDoc]

Here's an interesting opinion of the Roe Court (To me at least ):

In Dred Scott, the Supreme Court tried to settle the slavery controversy. Instead it hastened civil war.
With the Roe v. Wade decision 30 years ago, the court tried to end the debate about abortion.

Instead, it inflamed the issue and embittered our politics — because the court, by judicial fiat, abruptly ended what had been a democratic process of accommodation and compromise on abortion policy.

States Were Dealing With It

Before the court suddenly discovered in the constitution a virtually unlimited right to abortion, many state legislatures were doing what legislatures are supposed to do in a democracy: They were debating and revising laws to reflect changing community thinking.

In the five years before 1973, 16 states, with 41 percent of the nation's population — including then-Governor Reagan's California — liberalized their abortion laws.

Remember that when the next Supreme Court vacancy — perhaps this year — ignites a confirmation battle centering on the possibility that a one-vote change could reverse Roe v. Wade.

But reversal would not make abortion illegal. It would just restore abortion as a matter for states to regulate. And probably no state would outlaw first trimester abortions, which are almost 90 percent of all abortions.

Changing Culture

Whether you like it or not, the culture has changed a lot since 1973. Today, abortion ends more than one in five pregnancies. Abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures.

The widely exercised right to abortion is not about to be extinguished. But neither is the debate about abortion, which continues to trouble thoughtful people.

Unfortunately, thirty years ago the Supreme Court said to the American people: Shut up. Pipe down. Your debate about abortion is pointless, because we will decide policy.

Thus, did the Supreme Court diminish American democracy

Roe v. Wade Backfire

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Rex Little
Even though I'm pro-choice, I have to disagree with this. Anti-abortion laws are based on the premise that the fetus has as much right to have its life protected as you or I do. If you buy that premise, the quoted statement is like saying that murder concerns no one except the murderer and the victim's family.

My mistake for not mentioning it in my initial post, but my views on abortion from a pro-choice perspective is strictly in the first trimester alone. After that, it's too late, IMHO, and an unwanted child should be made available to a foster family, rather than aborted (unless, of course, a mother's physical health is endangered ... I admit to not having a clear stance WRT her mental health).

As for the murder analogy, that's stretching it a bit far. If you murder somebody, you've made a conscious decision to terminate the life of a person who's far beyond the confines of fetal development w/i the womb environment. IOW, they're not dependent on womb structures (such as the placenta) to sustain their developing life, but are wholly independent beings with developed thought processes and whatnot.

Ideally, the abortion issue would be made mostly moot by a mixture of personal responsibility and the free availability and/or access to birth control methods and, of course, reproductive education. To me, the "drive-through, gimme it anytime I want" abortion mentality and the "let's just ban it" mentality are one-dimensional "solutions" to a very complex and personal issue.

Gatekeeper

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Ideally, the abortion issue would be made mostly moot by a mixture of personal responsibility and the free availability and/or access to birth control methods and, of course, reproductive education. To me, the "drive-through, gimme it anytime I want" abortion mentality and the "let's just ban it" mentality are one-dimensional "solutions" to a very complex and personal issue.

Gatekeeper

Too right, Gatekeeper. Abortions are the most expensive and dangerous method of birth control. Anyone who uses it as such needs to take their brain back to the factory and have a new one installed.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't think the Supremes would overturn Roe even if the balance tipped to the right-wing...

Wait, with five right-wingers and four centrists you don't think the Court is right wing enough?

[Imran Siddiqui]

First, that before a fetus is human life, the State has no legitiate interest in regulating it. And thus, at that point, the mother's right to privacy is paramount.

The Supreme Court in Roe DID not decide when life started. It decided viability, which is when a fetus can survive outside the womb. The question whether a fetus is a life was undecided.

And, like said, Planned Parenthood v. Casey said the state can place regulations before viability if it does not create an undue burden on the right to abortion.

If this is true, then how are partial-birth abortions legal? Did a later case change the viability standard of Roe? Hook a brotha up wit some case law...

Because the Roe court did not decide when life began.

Wait, with five right-wingers and four centrists you don't think the Court is right wing enough?

Only a communist would consider Ginsburg and Stevens centrists .

[Capt Dizle]

I believe that abortion is as morally wrong as slavery was. And I think the issue should be resolved at the state level.

I would not support banning abortion, but rather work to change public perception to hasten the day that a consensus could form and concrete steps be taken to effectively eliminate abortion.

This is the approach that should have been taken with slavery. The South would have eventually freed the slaves and we all would have been better off with a peaceful resolution.

In the case of slavery, it was a dying economic proposition. Yet Northern pressure from abolutionists inflamed sentiments such that rational debate was impossible in the South.

Likewise, pressure from anti-abortionists today inflame the pro-choice segment of the population to the point that it interferes with efforts to focus on ways and means to reduce abortions.

In both cases we see the destructive effect of Federal interference. Government governs best the closer to the people the decisions are made.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm going to expand a bit on what Imran said regarding Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (USSC+)
Opinions: BLACKMUN, J., Opinion of the Court IX

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Now, here is how the court justifies a viability standard.

"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [p*164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

Note, LIFE OR HEALTH of the mother.

When combined with this section of Doe v. Bolton:

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) (USSC+)
Opinions: BLACKMUN, J., Opinion of the Court IV


"We agree with the District Court, 319 F.Supp. at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors --physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.

Note, health includes EMOTIONAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, FAMILIAL and the WOMAN'S AGE can all be justifications for abortion after the point of viability. The two rulings together allow for abortion on demand in the US.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Wait, with five right-wingers and four centrists you don't think the Court is right wing enough?

Certainly not, damn commie.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Supreme Court in Roe DID not decide when life started. It decided viability, which is when a fetus can survive outside the womb. The question whether a fetus is a life was undecided.

Really?? I could be wrong...it's been 15-20 years since I read the decision.

What was the significance of "viability" then?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Viability is when the child can live outside the womb. Obiwan's exerpts are right on point there.