Prominent NARAL, Planned Parenthood speaker and former Clinton administration legal eagle predicts overturn of Roe v. Wade

June 23, 2010
Prominent NARAL, Planned Parenthood speaker and former Clinton administration legal eagle predicts overturn of Roe v. Wade

NARAL will likely be scratching Walter Dellinger off its speakers list, as will Planned Parenthood....

Dellinger is obviously a pro-abort who served in the Clinton administration as an assistant attorney general and head of the Office of Legal Counsel. During the 1996-1997 Supreme Court term Dellinger served as acting Solicitor General. Dellinger is currently a law professor at Duke University and head of a DC law firm.

So the other side will certainly consider Dellinger's remarks on the future of legalized abortion, given last night during a debate at George Washington University, tantamount to pro-abort treason. That the debate was cosponsored by liberal think tank Center for American Progress (as well as the conservative American Action Forum and Politico) adds salt to the wound. This morning Politico reported:

Former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger predicted Tuesday night that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade, the landmark decision that gives women abortion rights....

The noted liberal scholar said the 1973 decision has become a "trophy" that the court's conservative bloc could overturn if a Republican president chooses a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy.
jillstanek.com/prominent-naral-speaker-and-fo.html

We can only hope and keep praying…

Maybe those rosaries I’ve prayed are making a difference, after all…

[quote="Ponyguy, post:2, topic:203753"]
We can only hope and keep praying...

Maybe those rosaries I've prayed are making a difference, after all...

[/quote]

Mary promised at Fatima that they would.If you haven,t already please join the Rosary Confraternity(just google it)

It would take a lot more than 1 Republican nominated Justice to overturn Roe v. Wade. Only two of the current justices have indicated that they would overturn it. A third would not make a difference.

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:4, topic:203753"]
It would take a lot more than 1 Republican nominated Justice to overturn Roe v. Wade. Only two of the current justices have indicated that they would overturn it. A third would not make a difference.

[/quote]

Argue with the representative of Naral who said it publicly.You obviously are much more knowledgeable than he is.

[quote="Soutane, post:5, topic:203753"]
Argue with the representative of Naral who said it publicly.You obviously are much more knowledgeable than he is.

[/quote]

I know what the positions of the current Supreme Court Justices are. Only Scalia and Thomas have expressed any interest in overturning Roe v. Wade. Adding a third is not enough.

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:6, topic:203753"]
I know what the positions of the current Supreme Court Justices are. Only Scalia and Thomas have expressed any interest in overturning Roe v. Wade. Adding a third is not enough.

[/quote]

see above

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:6, topic:203753"]
I know what the positions of the current Supreme Court Justices are. Only Scalia and Thomas have expressed any interest in overturning Roe v. Wade. Adding a third is not enough.

[/quote]

au, contraire.

msnbc.msn.com/id/10265262

And the lack of "expressing any interest" is does not constitute a "lack of interest", in Roberts' case.

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:4, topic:203753"]
It would take a lot more than 1 Republican nominated Justice to overturn Roe v. Wade. Only two of the current justices have indicated that they would overturn it. A third would not make a difference.

[/quote]

Who did you vote for in 2008? If McCain had won, we could already have two more anti-Roe supreme court justices. Also, your contention that we have only two votes to overturn Roe. V. Wade is very debatable. I would submit that we have four. But even if we only have two, shouldn't we work for the third, then a fourth? Or should we give up?

Ishii

[quote="ishii, post:9, topic:203753"]
Who did you vote for in 2008?

[/quote]

I wrote-in Hillary.

[quote="ishii, post:9, topic:203753"]
If McCain had won, we could already have two more anti-Roe supreme court justices.

[/quote]

McCain has, over the years, given mixed messages on whether or not Roe v Wade should be overturned. I wouldn't count on him selecting Supreme Court nominees that would try to do so.

[quote="ishii, post:9, topic:203753"]
But even if we only have two, shouldn't we work for the third, then a fourth? Or should we give up?

[/quote]

I don't have a problem with Roe v Wade and I'd say that any attempt to overturn it is highly unlikely any time in the near future.

If it WAS overturned, then it would go back to state by state to determine if abortion is legal.....most states would not outlaw abortions...women would drive across state lines to have them....not too much would change other than abortions would just be a bit more inconvienient to the women seeking them.

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:10, topic:203753"]
I wrote-in Hillary.

[/quote]

Yeah, because she isn't pro-abortion. :rolleyes:

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:10, topic:203753"]
McCain has, over the years, given mixed messages on whether or not Roe v Wade should be overturned. I wouldn't count on him selecting Supreme Court nominees that would try to do so.

[/quote]

But you'd trust Hillary to do so? :rolleyes:

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:10, topic:203753"]
I don't have a problem with Roe v Wade and I'd say that any attempt to overturn it is highly unlikely any time in the near future.

[/quote]

Of course you don't. You voted for Hillary.

[quote="Publisher, post:11, topic:203753"]
If it WAS overturned, then it would go back to state by state to determine if abortion is legal.....most states would not outlaw abortions...women would drive across state lines to have them....not too much would change other than abortions would just be a bit more inconvienient to the women seeking them.

[/quote]

Even if it caused 1 less abortion to occur, it would be a win.

But the real point is that winning over individual states would be a heck of a lot easier than winning over an entire nation. Look at what has happened with assisted suicide. They are traveling from state to state, passing laws. Even they know that winning at the state level is decidedly easier than winning at the national level.

[quote="Suudy, post:13, topic:203753"]
Even if it caused 1 less abortion to occur, it would be a win.

But the real point is that winning over individual states would be a heck of a lot easier than winning over an entire nation. Look at what has happened with assisted suicide. They are traveling from state to state, passing laws. Even they know that winning at the state level is decidedly easier than winning at the national level.

[/quote]

Before Roe, even states in which abortion was legal had more reasonable regulations than are possible under Roe. Roe, and Doe, overturned every one of those state laws, essentially mandating abortion on demand nationwide. It told states, 'we can regulate this better than you.' And the unlimited abortion liberty promulgated by judicial fiat in Roe, was not even what most people wanted. Abortion unregulated to the extent required by Roe would not have passed in any state.

But it's rather early for a NARAL speaker to be predicting overturn of Roe. That would occur only if Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor suddently converted to the pro-life cause. But they are after all, Obama appointees. Obama appointees do not convert to pro-life positions.

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:10, topic:203753"]
I wrote-in Hillary.

McCain has, over the years, given mixed messages on whether or not Roe v Wade should be overturned. I wouldn't count on him selecting Supreme Court nominees that would try to do so.

I don't have a problem with Roe v Wade and I'd say that any attempt to overturn it is highly unlikely any time in the near future.

[/quote]

I now know where you're coming from. I had assumed that you were pro-life. I guess I was wrong.

Ishii

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.