Alito is in...what next?

sadie2723 · #1 Feb 1, '06, 8:14 am

Well, we survived the Kennedy attack, and we got another good Catholic on the Court. Now what? I love to give my two cents on stuff like this, so here is what I hope. There is a case pending escalation to the court right now concerning abortion. I think that it is a partial birth issue, but don't quote me on that. The time has come to act and make abortion an illegal act. I do think that we have got to take this a step further. Once abortion has been procalimed illegal, there has to be legislation as to the nature what penalty will be inflicted for having one illegally. This is something that will fall to our individual states to decide. When the time comes, abortion must be placed in the murder catagory, and the penalty should be the same.

Just an opinion of a hard core Pro-Life Catholic.

Thanks for reading.

Brad

Maranatha · #2 Feb 1, '06, 10:33 am

To get Roe overturned, we'll need at least one more justice to retire and the right case needs to come before the SC. If the wrong case comes before the court, we won't get five votes to overturn.

It's possible but not probable that a pro-Row justice will retire in the next 10 months. It's more probable that one will retire in the next three years. This make the next election cycle the most critical election for the overturn of Roe since the ruling came out. It's now or probably never.

I believe it will eventually be overturned. In that case, the question goes back to the states to decide. The struggle will have only begun. We will have to convince majorities in each state to support anti-abortion laws. Will will have to win hearts and minds.

Seamus · #3 Feb 1, '06, 10:52 am

Assuming--and that is a big assumption!--that Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts would both vote to overturn Roe, there are still 5 out of the 9 justices who support that decision.

Even if there comes a day when a fifth and crucial vote is found on the Court to overturn Roe, it would be incorrect to expect that the holocaust that is legalized abortion will end the moment the Court renders its decision. For those of us that are pro-life, the best that we can realistically hope for is that the Court will kick the matter back to the various state legislatures to decide. If and when that happens, some states will limit or even ban abortions. Some states most certainly will not.

BioCatholic · #4 Feb 1, '06, 11:52 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus

If and when that happens, some states will limit or even ban abortions. Some states most certainly will not.

Exactly. And there is no possible legal, legitimate way to prevent people traveling from anti-abortion states, to pro-abortion states to have an abortion. or even leaving the country. state law stops at state borders. period.

Congress doesnt have the power to prevent the travel of a person for private matters such as this. youd have to get 50 state legislatures to ban abortions. then, you still cant keep a pregnant woman on US soil. more wealthy women will have their pick of the UK or Canada to go have one.

that doesnt even cover the birth control pill, whose PRIMARY purpose is prevention of ovulation. only a SECONDARY effect is prevention of implantation. many drugs have SECONDARY effect of either prevention of implantation or toxic side effects to fertilized eggs (ex Amioderone, Welbutrin). Birth control will remain legal only if it has a primary purpose of contraception. besides, the drug companies pockets are too deep for the average state lawmaker, and will be lobbied like never before.

Maranatha · #5 Feb 1, '06, 12:02 pm

Roe v. Wade did not establish the woman's privacy rights. It was the case that overturned the banning of contraception in Massachusetts. (I'm not sure what the name of the case was.)

If Roe is overturned, I wonder if - assuming the majority of voters in a state wished to ban contraception - that case would be overturned as well.

BioCatholic · #6 Feb 1, '06, 12:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maranatha

If Roe is overturned, I wonder if - assuming the majority of voters in a state wished to ban contraception - that case would be overturned as well.

no because alito and roberts explicity stated that the agree with Griswold vs Connecticuit (contraception for married couples), and the following case that allowed contraception for unmarried couples.

contraception is permenent, and here to stay.

cathologos · #7 Feb 1, '06, 4:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maranatha

Roe v. Wade did not establish the woman's privacy rights. It was the case that overturned the banning of contraception in Massachusetts. (I'm not sure what the name of the case was.)

If Roe is overturned, I wonder if - assuming the majority of voters in a state wished to ban contraception - that case would be overturned as well.

The case was Griswold v. Connecticut.

If the fundamental logic behind Roe and Griswold were rejected by the Court in a new abortion case, that would raise the possibility that, down the road, the Court might uphold state statutes restricting contraceptives.

Of course, there isn't much likelihood that states will adopt laws restricting contraceptives. Given AIDS, the likelihood that a state will enact laws restricting access to condoms has to be very small.

Then there's the matter of interstate purchase, by mail order or on the 'net. At some point, states run up against legitimate application of the commerce clause.

Realistically, Roe isn't going to be "overturned," in any case. We may well get rulings (from this court or future courts) that weaken or change the limits on state restrictions imposed by Roe and succeeding rulngs (Casey v. Planned Parenthood, ... there was another important one which I can't recall right now) -- but no Court is going to say, "Roe was wrong; everything now goes back to the way it was in 1972."