By Kathleen GilbertWASHINGTON, D.C., May 5, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Support for overturning Roe v. Wade is the highest among American adults since 2005, according to a Washington Post/ABC telephone survey released Friday. At the same time, however, a significantly larger number of respondents to…
How exactly will that happen?
Pro-abortion supreme court justices are now being appointed.
The supreme court ruling is only the law of the land because there is no other law. We don’t need the supreme court to change the laws. New laws can be made, including a constitutionaly ammendment which could overrule roe vs wade.
Our system of checks and balances still works, we just have to remember to use it.
So, exactly, what would have to be done to prevent the Supreme Court from declaring an overturn of Roe v. Wade to be unconstitutional?
You’d need an airtight constitutional amendment which would ristrict the right to privacy and/or establish a zygote as a person in the eyes of the law. In either case, such an amendment would be a very slippery slope and it really isn’t necessary.
The pro-life crowd demonizes the Roe v. Wade decision and I doubt most even know what is contained within it. All that decision did was prohibit the outright banning of abortion without regard for the life and health of the mother and it specifically allowed the States to regulate abortion based on the trimester of pregnancy and the risk to the life and health of the mother. The court determined in Roe v Wade that a woman’s right to have an abortion is NOT absolute and depends upon the trimester and/or risk to their own person and gives the States the authority to prohibit abortion in the second and third trimesters except in cases where the mother’s heath (as defined in Doe v Bolton) is at risk.
It would not be necessary to establish a zygote as a “person” in order to create a constitutional amendment protecting the life of an unborn human in the mother’s womb.
That is true. However, if you don’t define what you mean by “unborn human,” you leave it to the courts to define.
A pro-abortion supreme court justice is now being appointed (singular). This justice will replace Justice Stephens, who was already pro-abortion. What did change the balance of power was the retirement of Justice O’Connor, who was generally pro-abortion. She was replaced by Justice Alito, who is more conservative on this issue. So while O’Connor was the swing vote, Justice Kennedy (who was generally a bit to the right of O’Connor in rulings on this issue) is now the swing vote, as the most liberal of the 5-justice “conservative bloc” on the court. The trouble is respect for precedent - stare decisis. While I think the five conservative justices in the absence of precedent would severely limit instances when abortion would be allowed, instead the court at this point is mostly fighting over the narrow middle ground, occasionally pushing it one way (mostly in the conservative direction in the past few years).
Right, but you don’t need to define the unborn humans as “persons” and give them all the rights of the born. You can define human life as beginning at conception and restrict what can be done to that life (i.e. ending it is not an option).
If McCain had been elected President, then the previous Obama appointment would have been pro-life. AND the current appointment would also be pro-life.
It would be necessary for a determined and dedicated Senate to confirm the pro-life justices.
But with a confirmed pro-abortion Congress and Executive, there is no way for Roe v. Wade to be overturned anytime soon.
UNLESS … pro-lifers [aka conservative Republicans] win 2/3 of the House and enough votes to sway 2/3 of the Senate in November 2010 so they can override any veto by the President.
Of course it would. If your aim is to amend the Constitution then you have to select a section to amend. There are only two options; amending the Ninth Amendment to ristrict the privacy rights of the people or amending the Fourteenth Amendemnt to define a zygote as a person.
Not at all…in amending the Constitution there is no requirement to classify a zygote as a “person” to apply protection to a zygote. You can create a completely new protected class of human life (e.g. “unborn”) and give limited protection (e.g. life) to that class. It would, necessarily, modify the idea of a woman’s “right to privacy,” because this class of human life would not be considered part of the woman (as it, in reality, is not).
In other words, the woman would be limited in what she can do to an unborn human inside her body. Just as the right to privacy doesn’t allow a woman to kill a toddler in her own home, she would not be allowed to kill a zygote in her own body. Defining a zygote as a “person” would be problematic because of the other rights a “person” has under the Constitution.
If your aim is to provide protections for life beginning at conception then you will have to take zygote. “Unborn” is vague enough to allow for interpretation on the part of the Courts and would likely result in absolutely no change in case law as it relates to the first trimester. Whether or not a zygote is alive is irrelevant in the eyes of the law; what matters is whether or not it is a person.
The chance of Roe being overturned anytime soon: slim to none.
The chance of a Constitutional amendment passing that outlaws abortion: zero.
With that reality in mind, many of the above posts are purely hypothetical in nature.
Defining a zygote as a person would also be vague…and unnecessary. I never said that it would be defined as just “unborn” either…that was an example of the categorization. The bottom line is that the amendment would have to clearly spell out the protections and that the protections apply to unborn human beings from the point of conception. Even if the term “zygote” is never used, “from the point of conception” would include a zygote.
Being that your “chances” are pure, unsupportable opinion, your point is moot.
There is no need to pick a specific section, or clause, or amendment that you wish to modify. An amendment stands on its own, and may impact one or many other sections of the Constitution. Or it could even impact none at all - you could in theory have an amendment establishing the koala as America’s official cute furry primate.
I am guessing that you know how to ‘count the votes’ with either the Supreme Court or with Congress. You may not like the point I made earlier, but it reflects the reality of the political situation.
You made a pronouncement about the future. It is the “reality of the political situation” today, but you can’t count future votes. You can only make assumptions. Your conclusions, based on assumptions about the future, are hypothetical (i.e. if nothing changes). Therefore, you deemed other discussions as “purely hypothetical” based on the purely hypothetical conclusion that Roe v Wade won’t be overturned and an Amendment can’t be passed.
If everyone in a democracy took your strategy, the status quo would forever be the status quo. In order to change something, you have to advocate and push for change - not sit back and say…look at the Supreme Court and Congress…“count the votes”…nothing is going to change…