# "in 10 years Roe vs Wade will be overturned"



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

I was watching PBS last night, and they were interviewing a spokesman for the Southern Baptist convention about the new role of religious beliefs in government. This man stated that he was certain that Roe vs Wade will be overturned in 10 years, and that unless the Democratic party becomes pro-life, they are dead in the water.

While I would like to see a world where no woman feels like she needs to have an abortion, it is clear to me that we live in a world where abortion is a needed right for the mother. It distresses me that my daughters might be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.

I think another thing that concerns me is that with reproductive rights in hand, women now have many of the same responsibilities and pressures as men-- including wage earning, and, potentially, obligatory military service. If these reproductive rights are taken away, will women still have those same pressures on them? Can you imagine a society where women are expected to carry the same wage earning burden as men, yet they do not have access to abortion?

I can imagine so many troubling scenarios. For instance, exceptions allowing abortion will probably be made for a woman who is raped. But what about a woman who is raped by an acquaintance, and she does not want to come forward and make an accusation-- she could then be made to carry that child to term and share custody with her rapist, or the rapist could step in and stop an adoption procedure as the biological father, and the bio mother would be faced with the burden of proving she was raped 9 months or more after the fact.

Do you think Roe vs Wade will be overturned within the next ten years? What will our society be like if it is?


----------



## CharlieBrown (Jan 20, 2004)

bump, i am curious too


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I'm too AFRAID roe v. wade will be overturned to really think clearly on if it can or will happen in 10 years. As to the democratic party going pro-life? bah. conservative, religious-right blather. But sadly it is probably possible that we will see very real challenges to roe v. wade in the near future.

Interested in other's thoughts on this.

-Angela


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

so this is where my thread is! LOL. I thought I posted in news and current events, and kept looking in there.

What surprises me most of all is the apathy women seem to have on this issue. about 50% of all women have had an abortion. This must be an issue they care about!

I am also surprised by the apathy women seem to feel about the growing role of women in the military. Am I the only one who just wants to be swallowed up by the floor when I see a woman-- or a mama-- has been killed in Iraq? Is it un-PC to say that I feel a different kind of grief when I see a woman/ mama has been killed?

I just feel like we're entering this bizarre new world where women are losing reproductive rights, yet are expected to function, essentially, as men. It's as though our society is going backward on one front while modernizing on another when it comes to the role of women.


----------



## BensMom (May 4, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee*
about 50% of all women have had an abortion. This must be an issue they care about!

Where on earth are you getting this number? I did a quick search and found this:

Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; (That's 2%, which even sounds high to me)

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

To answer your original question, maybe RvW will be overturned, maybe not. But even if it does, it does not mean that abortion will be illegal. It just means that abortion is not federally protected, so individual states will decide. Some states would probably make it illegal, some states would put greater restrictions and other states would keep it legal. In those cases, you would be voting for the politicians who will make those laws, instead of leaving it up to judges who, like it or not, are not accountable to the voting public.


----------



## LongLiveLife (Nov 5, 2004)

The 2% figure may seem high to North Americans, but across much of the east abortion is accepted as birth control. It actually seems low to me, based on the number of women who I know have had abortions (& I would assume i know several who don't talk about it).
I am not concerned that Roe v. wade will be overturned. like you said, it's straight from the mouth of a Southern Baptist Spokesman. Then again, if you had asked me during the Clinton administration if I thought a lot of what is going on now would happen in America in my lifetime, I would have LAUGHED and said NO!

I do think that the abortion issue should be re-examined, and that the democratic party needs to stop treating it like the elephant in the room. I think that so many voters who are on the fence are turned off by late-term abortion, even though it is almost never practiced for non-medical reason. I believe that a democratic initiative to greatly reduce the number of abortions in this country (through social programs), without limiting access to them, would greatly help the party. JMO.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

The thought of it being overturned makes me ill, but doesn't directly affect me as I live in Canada. I don't think it would ever be overturned. It's a nice carrot for the Republicans to dangle to keep getting re-elected, and with a two party system, the only other choice anti-choicers have is voting Democrat who won't do it either. Not to mention, it would be a logistical nightmare. Social services could not handle the extra strain, people would be coming to Canada for abortion services, etc.

Even though abortion is currently legal in the U.S., it is not available in more places than it is available







I don't think abortion will be illegal, but it will become exceedingly difficult to find somewhere to obtain one that it may as well be illegal.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

Do you think Roe vs Wade will be overturned within the next ten years?
I do not think the Republican Party can allow Roe V. Wade to be overturned. As such, I do not think it will be.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BensMom*
Where on earth are you getting this number? I did a quick search and found this:

Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; (That's 2%, which even sounds high to me)


she said that 50% of women have had an abortion, not 50% do every year.

For example: If you take 2% a year and average it over 25 years of lifetime fertility (to cut it a little short) you do arrive at 50% total.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

she said that 50% of women have had an abortion, not 50% do every year.

For example: If you take 2% a year and average it over 25 years of lifetime fertility (to cut it a little short) you do arrive at 50% total.
Thanks for that.

Of course, that is assuming a 25 year fertility *and* that no woman ever has more than one abortion. The 50% seems a bit high to me (though much closer than 2%, of course).

A quick search found the "Feminist Women's Health Center" estimating one in three women (for the US, I am *ass*uming).
http://www.fwhc.org/

Oooh, here is a site that says "half" but it puts 43% in parenthesis after stating ALMOST half.

Quote:

Almost half of American women (43%) will have an abortion sometime in their lifetime.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact2.htm


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Exactly Tired, I wasn't trying to say that it's a number based of real science, but that using the 2% a year it's a reasonably plausable number.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

Exactly Tired, I wasn't trying to say that it's a number based of real science, but that using the 2% a year it's a reasonably plausable number.


----------



## djinneyah (Sep 4, 2004)

kind of OT, but....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee*
or the rapist could step in and stop an adoption procedure as the biological father, and the bio mother would be faced with the burden of proving she was raped 9 months or more after the fact.

i just wanted to point out that in florida, women who gave birth to a child of rape who are trying to either a) give up their babies for adoption or b) their SO (not the biological father) is trying to adopt the child must take out an ad in the paper (stating name, date/time of rape, when the baby was born, etc.) to give the biological father a chance to come forward to claim his parental rights.

ain't that some *$^& ?


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LongLiveLife*
The 2% figure may seem high to North Americans, but across much of the east abortion is accepted as birth control.

Where exactly is this? What countries?


----------



## BensMom (May 4, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
she said that 50% of women have had an abortion, not 50% do every year.

For example: If you take 2% a year and average it over 25 years of lifetime fertility (to cut it a little short) you do arrive at 50% total.

This math does not work. You assume you are taking the exact same population of women over a 25 year period and apply that 2% to them. When in fact, the population of eligible women is constantly changing and the 2% per year applies to that changing population.

It's like saying that if I am saving 10% of my income per month, in 10 months, will I be saving 100% of my income. NO, in in the 10th month, I will still be saving 10% of my income. (Hopefully a statistics guru will come in here and help me out.)

I am skeptical about most abortion stats. The pro-abortion feminists are trying to show that a lot of women have abortions so that they can justify their "abortion is the only issue affecting women" stance. The anti-choice religious crowd inflates the figures because they want to proove the degrdation of society that they fear so much. Either side is capable of skewing figures.

No one addressed my point that if RvW was overturned that it will become a state issue and more directly reponsive to the voting public. Is that a bad thing? The majority of the American public takes a very centrist view on aborion - first trimester with limited interference and more restrictions after that time. Most pundits (who are not on the emotional extremes) feel like given the opportunity, most of the states will adopt a very middle of the road approach to abortion. Your thoughts?


----------



## AmandaBL (Aug 3, 2004)

I'm just depressed with the state of our government. Unfortunatley I think it could happen.


----------



## Carolinamidwife (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
I do not think the Republican Party can allow Roe V. Wade to be overturned. As such, I do not think it will be.

Ooo... can you elaborate on that? I need something to cling to...


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

I wish he was right, but no, I don't think it will ever be overturned.

Quote:

No one addressed my point that if RvW was overturned that it will become a state issue and more directly reponsive to the voting public. Is that a bad thing?
No, I don't think so. Then the laws would be based on what the majority of that state want. If they did it on a federal level I'd hope they would do it by majority vote as well. That's really the only fair way.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

This math does not work. You assume you are taking the exact same population of women over a 25 year period and apply that 2% to them. When in fact, the population of eligible women is constantly changing and the 2% per year applies to that changing population.

It's like saying that if I am saving 10% of my income per month, in 10 months, will I be saving 100% of my income. NO, in in the 10th month, I will still be saving 10% of my income. (Hopefully a statistics guru will come in here and help me out.)
I have already stated that problem, and Arduinna has already agreed that it is not 100% accurate BUT it will be close. Most women actually have much longer than a 25 year fertility window. The stat I have found is 43% of women will undergo at least one abortion in their lifetimes which makes statistical sense. If you have other numbers, feel free to share them.

Back On Topic

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiredX2
I do not think the Republican Party can allow Roe V. Wade to be overturned. As such, I do not think it will be.

Ooo... can you elaborate on that? I need something to cling to...
Quite simply, the Republican party is not the party of the majority economically. Their policies only positively effect a very small percentage of people. How the far right has shifted politics in their direction is to embrace certain socially conservative views (beginning w/their wooing of the South by supporting institutional racism/segregation). They simply cannot afford to "win" a major war. There was high turnout among segments of the population this last election because the Republican Party was clever--- they got anti-Gay Rights measures on the ballot which pulled in people who usually would not "care" enough to vote. If there was a constitutional amendment enshrining anti-Gay laws, the Republican party would suddenly loose those voters. Same with abortion. Many people vote againts their own economic best interests in the name of "protecting life"--- if our society actually had no legalized abortion, many of those supporters would be "freed" to look around (for example, the slow shift of Roman Catholics who have traditionally been Democratic for a number of reasons to the Republican party SOLEY because of abortion issues).

Gotta go,
Kay


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

To respond to the idea of making it a state issue. I live in Texas. I live in a large city that is fairly liberal compared to the rest of the state. Abortion is currently available here (with parental notification for minors, which is another issue I won't get into here...) However I recently found out that my loverly state government has passed a law saying that teenagers can not get prescription birth control without a parent's okay. Now that bugs me. Do I trust those guys to regulate abortion? No way. And TX is a big place. For someone here in Houston to make it to another state (ANY other state) is at least a 3 hour drive. More on a bus. More to another major city where they could actually have an abortion.

my $.02

-Angela


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BensMom*
Where on earth are you getting this number? I did a quick search and found this:
.

from www.afterabortion.com, which states:

Quote:

By age 45, 1 out of every 2.5 women in the United States has had at least one abortion!*
the reference cited is the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Another poster is correct, this doesn't mean that 1 out of every 2.5 women has an abortion EACH YEAR, just that by age 45, cumulatively, 1 out of every 2.5 women has had an abortion. This comes out to 40% of all women.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *djinneyah*
kind of OT, but....

i just wanted to point out that in florida, women who gave birth to a child of rape who are trying to either a) give up their babies for adoption or b) their SO (not the biological father) is trying to adopt the child must take out an ad in the paper (stating name, date/time of rape, when the baby was born, etc.) to give the biological father a chance to come forward to claim his parental rights.

ain't that some *$^& ?


yup, I've read about this, and have seen adoption counselors quoted as saying they've seen pregnant women go straight from their office to the abortion clinic after learning about the law.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

I don't think it will be overturned.

Now, if the conservatives have their way and their propaganda surrounding "partial birth abortions" is believed by the majority, we may have strict guidelines in place. Which I wouldn't mind, to a certain extent... like, if a woman decides to abort at eight months for no other reason than to rid herself of the pregnancy. But that number is so incredibly small... so ridiculously small... that to have an actual law covering it would be pointless. If a woman was that desperate she'd get rid of the baby, anyway.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

I think the figures are more like 1/3 not 1/2 (because some women have more than one abortion.)

I'm pro-life and would like to see Roe re-examined but I don't think it's going to happen in the next 10 years.

Debra Baker


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BensMom*
No one addressed my point that if RvW was overturned that it will become a state issue and more directly reponsive to the voting public. Is that a bad thing? The majority of the American public takes a very centrist view on aborion - first trimester with limited interference and more restrictions after that time. Most pundits (who are not on the emotional extremes) feel like given the opportunity, most of the states will adopt a very middle of the road approach to abortion. Your thoughts?

To me it would be (probably will be) a bad thing. I think the abortion rights are fundamental rights, and should not be subject to state-by-state variability (Alternet just had a depressing article about the inaccessibility of abortions in Misissippi, for example, and how the situation would likely get worse, and be replicated elsewhere, if RvW falls). Some rights, frankly, are too important to be subject to direct vote, IMO!


----------



## KoalaMama (Jan 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AnnMarie*
No, I don't think so. Then the laws would be based on what the majority of that state want. If they did it on a federal level I'd hope they would do it by majority vote as well. That's really the only fair way.

Um, no, a majority vote would not be the only fair way! How about letting people make decisions for their own bodies? That sounds like the fair, logical way to me. What's fair about you making decisions concerning my body based on moral values that I don't adhere to?


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I believe that a democratic initiative to greatly reduce the number of abortions in this country (through social programs), without limiting access to them, would greatly help the party. JMO.








Numerous social programs promoted by, generally, Democrats have been shown to reduce the abortion rate. Republicans (generalization here, of course) then turn around and cut those programs which INCREASES the abortion rate and then have a fit about the "morality" of our Nation. How is it moral to force women to have children they cannot afford and then refuse to financially help them? You'll notice the abortion rate has gone UP under Bush, not down.

Quote:

No one addressed my point that if RvW was overturned that it will become a state issue and more directly reponsive to the voting public. Is that a bad thing? The majority of the American public takes a very centrist view on aborion - first trimester with limited interference and more restrictions after that time. Most pundits (who are not on the emotional extremes) feel like given the opportunity, most of the states will adopt a very middle of the road approach to abortion. Your thoughts?
My thoughts? I don't care what the majority thinks on this issue--- it is not an issue for the majority to decide. My uterus, my choice. There should be certain inallienable rights, and for me, I clearly place reproductive choice within that sphere. Need I mention, once again, that the majority of people have supported some obviously abhorent behavior at one time or another--- Slavery, Jim Crow Laws, Japanese Internment during WW2... the list goes on and on. I am unwilling to make reproductive choices for anyone but me, and unwilling to give others (other than DP) a say in my own.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

You fail to mention the rights of the unborn baby.

IMHO, the abortion debate is a conflict between two valid rights.

I believe the baby's right to life is paramount but I can understand the other perspective, women must be able to have autonomy.

If there are programs out there that reduce the number of abortions without infringing on the rights of the women involved I am all in favor of those programs. Both sides need to get together to reduce the number of abortions. It's such a clash between rights that we may not ever get everyone to agree but we can all agree to reduce the perceived need for abortion.

Gosh, I'm sounding like Hillary







:

db editing to say I agree that this isn't something to be decided by the majority. There are things here that are inherent rights; the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority.


----------



## glendora (Jan 24, 2005)

What are republicans gonna use to rally the masses, if abortion is outlawed?


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Y'all have them thar pervert gays and *********.

They're always good for a quick hate rally.

db


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DebraBaker*
IMHO, the abortion debate is a conflict between two valid rights.

Just want to say that I totally agree with this assessment of the conflict, and I am staunchly pro-choice (I view the woman's rights as paramount). This is how I always frame the debate. It surprises me how infrequently I hear this viewpoint articulated by either side--the language used is so often absolute, referring to either the rights of the fetus OR the rights of the woman, but not both. It's nice to hear someone in the "other camp" view the issue the same way I do (even if we come to different conclusions).


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Kaydee,

Thank you. If we could humanize the "other side" we could possibly dare to work together to acheive that for which we agree.

Fewer abortions.

Better conditions for the babies who manage to get born.

Equity for women.

There is way too much to do to dehumanize others and use that as an excuse for lethargy.

Debra Baker


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DebraBaker*
Kaydee,

Thank you. If we could humanize the "other side" we could possibly dare to work together to acheive that for which we agree.

Fewer abortions.

Better conditions for the babies who manage to get born.

Equity for women.

There is way too much to do to dehumanize others and use that as an excuse for lethargy.

Debra Baker


Hear hear! I hate the hate. I have never met anyone pro-abortion (I'm sure they're out there, but I've been lucky enough to avoid them) The problem I have is that so many pro-life groups want to make other choices which could REDUCE abortions illegal or hard to get also. (Hence my earlier post I CAN NOT BELIEVE that in my state a 17 year old girl - who otherwise has the right to make all medical decisions for herself- cannot get the pill without her mommy's okay. That sickens me. What good does that do anyone? And this from someone who has never been on the pill)

sigh.

-Angela


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

Hence my earlier post I CAN NOT BELIEVE that in my state a 17 year old girl - who otherwise has the right to make all medical decisions for herself-
See, but this isn't correct. A 17 year old who goes to the school nurse for a cough drop isn't even allowed that without their parents' consent. They can't legally make their own medical decisions. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to. I'm saying that they are currently not allowed.


----------



## Still_Snarky (Dec 23, 2004)

It won't be completely overturned in the next 10 years. Neo-conservatives need something to rile people up about. Abortion, among other divisive platforms (gay marriage for one...) is important in running a political campaign. If the liberals aren't doing something amoral, what is there to fight/point about?

Was that clear?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
See, but this isn't correct. A 17 year old who goes to the school nurse for a cough drop isn't even allowed that without their parents' consent. They can't legally make their own medical decisions. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to. I'm saying that they are currently not allowed.


Ah, that's a different issue. Schools are prisons. Everyone who sets foot on them is also subject to search- without cause. But, a 17yr old can go to a public clinic (or her private ped. who she's been seeing all her life) and make her own medical decisions without that information being passed on to her parents. BUT she can't get birth control.

-Angela


----------



## moondiapers (Apr 14, 2002)

I actually only know personally 2 people that have had an abortion, and one of them was forced to by her mother. Her mom threatened to toss her out on the street if she didn't get one, she was 15 years old. She got pregnant again 4 months later, flipped mom the bird, and moved out. The other person made the decision herself and has a really healthy way of looking at it IMO.

-Heather


----------



## moondiapers (Apr 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
Ah, that's a different issue. Schools are prisons. Everyone who sets foot on them is also subject to search- without cause. But, a 17yr old can go to a public clinic (or her private ped. who she's been seeing all her life) and make her own medical decisions without that information being passed on to her parents. BUT she can't get birth control.

-Angela

this is because, in many states, just being pregnant makes a girl medically emancipated. This gives her the right to make decisions about her child.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

I think there's a good chance it will be overturned, and here's why. Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court decision, and Supreme Court justices don't answer to anyone once they're appointed! So it really doesn't matter whether it would be a horrible tactical move for the Republican Party to have RvW overturned. Once they get their nominees on the bench, it's out of their hands.

Three Supreme Court justices are likely to retire or die in the next four years. Rehnquist is on his way out - he has aggressive thyroid cancer. Stevens is 80 years old. O'Connor is 70, has had breast cancer, may want out. Ruth Bader Ginsburg hasn't been there all that long but is 65 and has battled colon cancer in the last year. Three to four Supreme Court justices - you add them to Scalia and Thomas, who will more than likely vote to overturn RvW if they get a chance, and bingo, there's your 5-4 majority.

Also keep in mind that the Republican Party owes the fundamentalists and the pro-lifers BIG TIME and these groups are well aware of it. Look at the huge flap over Arlen Specter's statements that almost cost him the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. You can be damn sure that the next Supreme Court nominees are going to be acceptable to these constituents - i.e. anti-choice. I highly doubt they're going to accept another Souter (Bush I's don't-ask-don't-tell who has turned out to be on the pro-choice side).

The risk of RvW (well, really its progeny, it's been modified by subsequent decisions) being overturned is real. Kicking it back to the states? TERRIBLE idea. How many states would still have racist segregation policies in place if it had been left up to them? It took federal civil rights legislation to drag states kicking and screaming into the twentieth century. The "will of the majority" cannot be trusted with fundamental human rights, because too many times the majority doesn't give a rat's patootie.

Keep in mind too that even if the majority of Americans favor abortion rights, even with limitations, the pro-life people are incredibly well organized and have a lot of friends and allies in state legislatures around the country. Look at how many restrictions have been placed on abortion (and I am pro-choice, but agree with a lot of limitations) by states, for example holding abortion clinics to hospital standards as a way of driving them out of business when other doctors' offices and outpatient clinics that also do surgical procedures are not forced to live up to such standards.


----------



## LongLiveLife (Nov 5, 2004)

DebraBaker & Kaydee, it really is a breath of fresh air to come across 2 people with this point of view. This has always been how I've seen the issue: everyone believes they are championing human rights, but we come to different conclusions and need to respect the compassion behind everyones opinion. i have never even liked the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" b/c with a terrible few exceptions, all off us are BOTH of these things. i especially don't like to hear "anti-life" and "anti-choice". These slogans are just potshots.

Kaydee, to answer your question about my statement re: certain areas of the world, I lived in Korea briefly. Many of the young women there were not simply pro-choice, they were pro-abortion. They saw abortion as a solution to the problems of poverty and overpopulation much as we look at birth control. I know there's a lot of this in urban India, too, from what i understand- and I'm sure it's not limited to these countries.


----------



## Smithie (Dec 4, 2003)

"I am unwilling to make reproductive choices for anyone but me, and unwilling to give others (other than DP) a say in my own."

Hear, hear! My view is that some decisions are so momentous and have such far-reaching lifelong consequences that NOBODY other than the individual has any right participate in them. Abortion is one - also adoption, becoming a parent, religious practices, choosing a spouse, whether to consume animal products or not, myriad decisions involving childrearing, etc. Sometimes the only one who's fit to decide is the person sitting in the hot seat, YKWIM?


----------

