You might not like Obama's promises

[Zzarchov]

Roe v Wade is safe. The right to chose is safe. The majority of Americans agree to Women's Choice. Pro-Choice Advocates like to scare and are fervent but it isn't going anywhere.

That doesn't matter. America doesn't base its laws on an issue based on how people feel on that issue, they base laws on how people feel on an unrelated issue.

For instance, If I am pro-gun rights and pro-womans rights I have a choice to make in the ridiculous 2 party system.

I can vote to weaken my gun rights or vote to weaken woman's rights.

I am forced to choose a candidate who will oppose half of my views. As such, if I vote in favour of my gun rights (and others think as I do in this very simplified example) then even though the majority of people oppose anti-abortion laws, it will be based based on our support for gun rights, despite being unrelated.

 

[EagleSmack]

Funny... too bad no one told the good people of South Dakota that this issue was already settled or the people of California who had to vote yet again on a measure to restrict abortion a few weeks ago. Pro-lifers are hardly done fighting on this one. Need I remind you that Obama's voting record on abortion was mentionned in his opponents ads multiple times?

No question. Pro-Life advocates are just as fervent. I do not disagree there. I would just be VERY surprised if that right is taken away. I just don't think they have the numbers nationwide.

 

[tracy]

No question. Pro-Life advocates are just as fervent. I do not disagree there. I would just be VERY surprised if that right is taken away. I just don't think they have the numbers nationwide.

I don't think it will be taken away everywhere, but it is already severely geographically limited. Most states have restrictions on abortions. Most counties have NO abortion providers. The federal ban on so-called partial birth abortions was upheld by the supreme court with NO exception for a woman's health. Pro-lifers don't need the majority to agree with them. They just need powerful people to.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Pro-lifers don't need the majority to agree with them. They just need powerful people to.

All pro lifers need is one more Republican President, to appoint one more conservative justice to the Supreme Court.

If McCain would have won, it would have happened in the next 2 or 3 years. If a Republican wins in four years’ time, it will happen in 5 to 7 years. If Republican wins in eight years’ time, it will happen in ten years. It is only a matter of time.

If Democrats win the next two presidential elections (Obama winning reelection and a Democrat winning in 2016), then Roe could be considered to be safe. No doubt by the year 2020 one or two of the Conservatives justices will have to retire (there is no mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices in USA, unlike Canada), or they may die. If one or two conservative justices are replaced by a pro Roe justice, then abortion rights will be safe. But that is a long way off.

 

[gopher]

Roe vs Wade was decided by a Republican majority.

 

[Stretch]

where's ya rifle

 

[scratch]

In my personal opinion , a large can of worms is being opened here but on the other hand states are finding their way around Roe v. Wade.

scratch

 

[gopher]

'states are finding their way around Roe v. Wade'.


Examples, please.

 

[JLM]

In my personal opinion , a large can of worms is being opened here but on the other hand states are finding their way around Roe v. Wade.

scratch

I think Obama has more urgent fish to fry. Personally I'm mildly optimistic that things will improve few percentage points under Obama- he appears to be a solid, capable person, but he's still a politician and he has tremendous pressures put on him to do special favours that aren't necessarily in the best interest of the Country. If he can get unemployment down a point or two, improve health care a tad and pull a few troops out of Eye Rack, then he will probably be considered a success.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Roe vs Wade was decided by a Republican majority.

Gopher, yes. But the judges who were appointed, were done so before abortion became the prominent issue. When justices line Brennan, Thurgood Marshall were appointed, most of the country believed abortion to be wrong, nobody thought in their wildest dream that Supreme Court would legalize it some day. So nobody asked the nominees as to how they felt about the abortion issue.

After Roe vs. Wade was decided, Republican Presidents tried as far as possible to ascertain how the nominees feel about the abortion issue, and tried to appoint only those who would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

In that they have had limited success, currently four of the nine justices are committed to vote to reverse Roe vs. Wade, they are just one vote short.

Conservatives were particularly disappointed about Justice Kennedy. He was appointed with the express purpose of overturning Roe vs. Wade. When it came before the court for the first time, he did indeed vote against Roe. But he was still in the minority, so Roe stayed.

But later on, Kennedy changed his mind, and now he is a strong supporter of Roe. If he had stayed anti-Roe, it would be overturned by now.

Republican Presidents have had limited success in appointing anti-Roe judges. However, the justices who generated Roe were not appointed with the issue of abortion in mind.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In my personal opinion , a large can of worms is being opened here but on the other hand states are finding their way around Roe v. Wade.

scratch

I don’t’ think so, Scratch, they try (especially Bible Belt), but without success. Recently Supreme Court has permitted some restrictions on abortion (especially partial birth abortion). However, abortion by and large still remains legal, especially in the first trimester.