Roe vs. Wade....

[Silcc69]

On the 36th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, striking down the laws of 46 states and the District of Columbia restricting or outlawing abortion, the situation looks pretty grim for the cause of life. Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion politician ever elected President (http://catholicism.about.com/b/2009/01/19/what-will-barack-obama-do-as-president.htm), and the official White House website declares that he "will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration."Yet those of us who recognize abortion as the destruction of unborn human life need to ask ourselves: Is the situation that much different from what it has been over the past 36 years?For 20 out of those 36 years, the White House has been occupied by Republican presidents who declared themselves to be pro-life (though George H.W. Bush's conversion on the question did not come until 1987, as he geared up to run for the Republican nomination for President in 1988). For six out of the past eight years, George W. Bush had a majority in both houses of Congress. Yet the number of abortions nationwide every year has held relatively steady, at around 1.3 million, no matter who occupied the White House or which party controlled Congress.
Both parties have treated abortion as a political issue--as a tool for winning elections. Once in office, they have essentially governed the same, with some differences concerning federal funding and partial-birth abortion--questions that concern, at most, a few thousand abortions per year (a fraction of one percent of all abortions performed in the United States).
The biggest difference between the two parties on abortion has been on the question of Supreme Court nominations, yet even there, Republican nominees were responsible for Roe v. Wade in the first place, and more recent Republican nominees, such as David Souter and Anthony Kennedy, have shown little interest in restricting Roe, much less overturning it.
Meanwhile, the culture continues to change. For many people of Barack Obama's age and younger (he was 11 when Roe was handed down), their commitment to abortion is as much a cultural question as an ideological one. Abortion has been part of the cultural landscape their entire lives. It has been framed, even by pro-lifers, as a civil-rights question--and in the process, the horrifying reality of the act has been lost.
By the time that Barack Obama finishes his first term, Roe v. Wade will be within days of its 40th anniversary. Two generations of Americans will have grown up as he did, with abortion an accepted reality. That's a cultural force that will be very hard to combat--and it won't be defeated simply by overturning Roe.
Yes, Roe should be overturned, and the question returned to the states, where homicide law is handled in the United States. But that possibility grows more remote every day--and even if Roe were somehow overturned, most states would keep abortion legal. So what should those of us who understand what is at stake in abortion do now?
We should regard the next four years as an opportunity to refocus our efforts. We know that no advances will be made on the national level, so our primary focus will need to be on the states and localities. But we should also consider that perhaps that’s where our focus should have been all along. While we often mention the aggregate number of children who are killed every year in this nation by abortion, what we’re really talking about is the number of children killed in my town and your town and hundreds of other towns across the country.
Abortion isn't an amorphous force, striking the nation as a whole; it's always focused on this child, in this place, right now. It's time for pro-lifers to do the same. Support the crisis pregnancy center in your town, or help found one if there isn't one; put pressure on local politicians to keep abortionists out of your town, or apply political and social pressure to make it clear that those who are currently operating there aren't welcome.
At the family, parish, and diocesan level, we need to be looking constantly for ways to live out our beliefs. We need to provide aid--private aid, not governmental--to unwed mothers and to families suffering in this economy who might see abortion as their only option.
We can begin to turn the culture around from the ground up, in a way that overturning Roe would never, by itself, do. This is how Christians, down through the centuries, have converted their fellow men. This is how they have taken entire societies, starting with the Roman empire, off of the way of death and put them on the way of life.
Even if it were to happen, overturning Roe v. Wade would not be a magic bullet that would bring about the end of abortion in the United States. But Christian action, informed and sustained by prayer, might be.


http://catholicism.about.com/b/2009/01/22/will-roe-v-wade-ever-be-overturned.htm


This has to be one of the biggest shams out there. This isn't about if you're pro choice or pro life but it's the fact that the Republican's haven't done much to overturn this. This is what I was wondering about when I asked this question to Erika. It's amazing how they campaign for being pro life but when it comes down to the nitty gritty of overturning Roe vs. Wade you don't hear a peep from them.

[kaiser1one]

Problem with alot of political pro-lifers, the dont give damn about the coming child once its born. After that, they move on to the next one. So now this newly born child could be in for a life of complete unhappiness.

But that's not their concern, no they "fought" for that unborn child's right to live. Now that said child is in the world, they are no longer important.

Screw that, Roe v. Wade should never be overturned. If all law was left up to the states, the Christian's would have a field day restricting life and rights. Why should someone who had sex HAVE to give birth to a child??? That's insane. You wind up like the Duggars, having WAY too many children.

Pregnancy shouldn't be forced as a result of having sex. You should be allowed to have sex with any consenting adult you like. You shouldn't have to start a family as a result of it.

[onmyknees]

Problem with alot of political pro-lifers, the dont give damn about the coming child once its born. After that, they move on to the next one. So now this newly born child could be in for a life of complete unhappiness.

But that's not their concern, no they "fought" for that unborn child's right to live. Now that said child is in the world, they are no longer important.

Screw that, Roe v. Wade should never be overturned. If all law was left up to the states, the Christian's would have a field day restricting life and rights. Why should someone who had sex HAVE to give birth to a child??? That's insane. You wind up like the Duggars, having WAY too many children.

Pregnancy shouldn't be forced as a result of having sex. You should be allowed to have sex with any consenting adult you like. You shouldn't have to start a family as a result of it.



Huge over generalization, which you tend to engage in from time to time. There are countless religious and non religious agencies to help those women who chose not to abort. While I have mixed feelings on the matter, the majority of Americans now favor some restrictions be it parental notification, or restrictions on late term. There is a compromise to be had, and many states have found it...but to the militant one issue pro abortion on demand folks...... any restriction cannot be tolerated. I just wonder in the end what it says about us as a society that allows a late term abortion when the mother's health is not in question

[Stavros]

The article qoted above is typical of the debate on abortion in the USA; similar as it in tone to the debate here in the UK, it is, nevertheless:
a) ignorant of American history -deliberately or not;
b) makes no link between abortion and public health as an issue; and
c) combines moral and political judgement on the basis of religious doctine, with no regard to the religious affiliation, or non-affiliation of the woman concerned, in a country which has no official religion.

A) Abortion was legal in the USA until the 19th century -women used to take locally grown herbs before the first four months that would induce a termination -it became big business, but when it was first outlawed in some states in the 1820s and 1830s it was under laws that re-classified the herbal remedies as poisons -because some women were dying as a consequence. When abortion became a major political issue in the 1870s and 1880s, it was was because mostly white Middle Class women were obtaining them, giving rise to fears that America would be swamped by illiterate, lower class Roman Catholics and Jews. But the key, when the American Medical Association got their way, was to take abortion out of the hands of women and female remedies and restricted to the modern world of medicine that only licensed doctors could practise. The right to life was not the issue, white Protestant babies were. Where class is a constant in British history, 'race' is a constant in America.
An additional factor is the situation in which the woman has becone pregnant outside marriage -the USA might be a liberal place to live in now, but it used to be as savage in its condemnation of the illegitimate and their single mothers as it was in the UK and as it is today, say, in the Arab world -hence the concept of 'confession' where the woman has to concede it was all her fault and that she is a terrible sinner, something Ronald Reagan was naturally keen to impose on women.

B) The hostility shown to abortion, which women have been using since ancient Egypt, and in all cultures, deepened in the 20th century and became a public health issue -illegal, and unsafe abortions were themselves the cause of illness or death, either at the time or later when, through botched abortions women found that when they did want a family, they and/or their children died in childbirth -Roe -v- Wade as a public health issue led to a dramatic fall in the maternal-infant mortality ratio: in other words, as a public health issue, it was a triumph for all concerned.

C) The article above is written from one of the many available Christian points of view. It is based on a -largely Roman Catholic- doctrine that life begins with conception and is 'sacred'. The same Christians who have combined Abortion as a moral and a political issue, have not campaigned against the death penalty, which is a contradiction in terms -if the taking of life is always wrong, it is always wrong, the death penalty is un-Christan. But this same position, as the article shows, takes no interest in the religious belief of women who seek an abortion, nor does it even consider if they have any religious belief; just as it asks no questions of the cirucmstances in which women become pregnant, be it from a one-night stand, from faulty contraceptives, not even from rape even though it is obvious that by definition that contraceptives were not used and that the woman's own body was violated and taken over against her will.
In addition, and crucially, the article does not ask who it is that gives Christians in the USA the legal, constitutional or even the moral right to make demands of women who are not Christian. What in the 19th century was a war against the Jews and Roman Catholics, has become a war against women. If this conflation of one man's religion with federal and state politics were to be transported into other policy areas, would it not be -hypothetically- possible to make the consumption of alcohol in California illegal because it is forbidden in Islam? The health issue might be part of the argument, but in times to come we could be reading an article like the one quoted in this thread, where the last line reads:

Even if it were to happen, overturning the law would not be a magic bullet that would bring about the end of alcohol consumption in the United States. But Muslim action, informed and sustained by prayer, might be.

[Silcc69]

Stavros, you missed my point man. I was trying to show as the article pointed out how the Republicans are suppose to be so prolife but they have never even tried to overturn Roe vs. Wade. They simply use it as a political wedge to their advantage and none of the pro-lifers have called them out on there BS.

[Stavros]

Fair point Silcc I did get that, but I jump on things sometimes and can't seem to let go....incidentally when I was in the Labour Party there were more than a few members in our local party who were liberal on just about every issue, except abortion. It is one of those issues that crosses parties and divides people; but I agree, this public health/moral problem rarely becomes coherent policy.

[hippifried]

Stavros, you missed my point man. I was trying to show as the article pointed out how the Republicans are suppose to be so prolife but they have never even tried to overturn Roe vs. Wade. They simply use it as a political wedge to their advantage and none of the pro-lifers have called them out on there BS.
But they have tried. Just not successfully. The party can't really put all their eggs in that basket. There's too many Republicans who don't agree with that position, & the party can't afford to alienate the folks on their side over a single issue. Mostly, the fight against abortionis carried out by church organizations. They aren't having much luck either.

Roe v Wade is solid law. This really isn't about parties. Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court for 50 years or more. Abortion was the catalyst, but the decision is based the right to privacy & State's power to negate it. Where's tyhe "right to privacy" in the Constitution you ask? The 9th Amendment. The 1st Amendment keeps religion out of the equation. 36 years, & there hasn't been a case that can come close to overturning it in court. Can't do it with an Act of Congress either. the last option is a Constitutional Amendment. No problem. All you need is agreement from 2/3 of Congress & 3/4 of the States. Good luck with that. It's going to take a lot more than religious hyperbole to get rid of Roe.

[onmyknees]

Stavros, you missed my point man. I was trying to show as the article pointed out how the Republicans are suppose to be so prolife but they have never even tried to overturn Roe vs. Wade. They simply use it as a political wedge to their advantage and none of the pro-lifers have called them out on there BS.


I did not realize that was your intent either....perhaps you should have stated that more clearly....thus the problem with copy and paste.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but there are times when you lack a certain political satisfaction, and this is one of those times...let me explain..
Let's take the 8 years of the Bush Administration. To doubt for a moment, Bush's displeasure with Roe v. Wade, would be a mistake.. But you may recall, he was presented with other more immediate challenges such as 911, Iraq and Afghanistan. As a political tactic, the religious right not withstanding, to put the nation through that torturous debate at a time of war would not have been wise politically, or for the physic of the nation. My opinion of Bush's approach was slow as you go....little pain, and little gains, and sway public opinion as you go.

Here is what neither you, or the author took time to consider ...Any discussion of Roe v. Wade involves the Supreme Court. Explain to me if you can what the prudence of Bush bringing up his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade with all those years of dealing with a Democratic Congress ?

Over his 8 years, Bush has made significant progress toward overturning Roe v. Wade. Just look at what he has done with the Supreme Court. He has placed Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court. It is widely believed among legal scholars that Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas would all vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if they get the opportunity to rule on the matter. That's a huge step in that direction.

Perhaps Bush took a look at the political landscape, the reality of 2 wars and a nation whose nerves were frayed, and the reality that Roe v. Wade had become so entrenched, and decided a slow steady "around the edges" approach was far better. And the reality is....assuming that was his tactic....he was correct. Public opinion by substantial margins now favor restrictions, and many states are clipping this idea of abortion on demand. Many legal experts consider it more likely that the reconstituted Supreme Court will allow Roe to stand while whittling away at its applications. This has two advantages -- it would respect the legal principle of state's decisions while restricting access in ways that are politically popular.

So you see Silcc....it's not "BS",. Politics is largely about opportunity and circumstance. Had circumstances been different, I have little doubt Bush would have put more political capitol into the abortion issue but in the end,.....his approach may prove to be the wisest. But since you consider him a buffoon, maybe you never considered that.

[Silcc69]

I did not realize that was your intent either....perhaps you should have stated that more clearly....thus the problem with copy and paste.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but there are times when you lack a certain political satisfaction, and this is one of those times...let me explain..
Let's take the 8 years of the Bush Administration. To doubt for a moment, Bush's displeasure with Roe v. Wade, would be a mistake.. But you may recall, he was presented with other more immediate challenges such as 911, Iraq and Afghanistan. As a political tactic, the religious right not withstanding, to put the nation through that torturous debate at a time of war would not have been wise politically, or for the physic of the nation. My opinion of Bush's approach was slow as you go....little pain, and little gains, and sway public opinion as you go.

Here is what neither you, or the author took time to consider ...Any discussion of Roe v. Wade involves the Supreme Court. Explain to me if you can what the prudence of Bush bringing up his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade with all those years of dealing with a Democratic Congress ?

Over his 8 years, Bush has made significant progress toward overturning Roe v. Wade. Just look at what he has done with the Supreme Court. He has placed Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court. It is widely believed among legal scholars that Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas would all vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if they get the opportunity to rule on the matter. That's a huge step in that direction.

Perhaps Bush took a look at the political landscape, the reality of 2 wars and a nation whose nerves were frayed, and the reality that Roe v. Wade had become so entrenched, and decided a slow steady "around the edges" approach was far better. And the reality is....assuming that was his tactic....he was correct. Public opinion by substantial margins now favor restrictions, and many states are clipping this idea of abortion on demand. Many legal experts consider it more likely that the reconstituted Supreme Court will allow Roe to stand while whittling away at its applications. This has two advantages -- it would respect the legal principle of state's decisions while restricting access in ways that are politically popular.

So you see Silcc....it's not "BS",. Politics is largely about opportunity and circumstance. Had circumstances been different, I have little doubt Bush would have put more political capitol into the abortion issue but in the end,.....his approach may prove to be the wisest. But since you consider him a buffoon, maybe you never considered that.

Where on earth did I single out Bush our mention him specifically. The author had mentioned him not me. Though I do find it amusing that you managed to skim over this point he made.

For six out of the past eight years, George W. Bush had a majority in both houses of Congress. Yet the number of abortions nationwide every year has held relatively steady, at around 1.3 million, no matter who occupied the White House or which party controlled Congress.