My 270towin map makes it simpler. The pink states are where it would automatically be banned upon Roe being overturned. The red states are where legislation could plausibly very quickly be signed into law banning abortion. The other states are where it would still be legal.
Don’t know why you are making a joke out of this. The vast majority of users on this website are anti-abortion. This lets people know what the result of a Roe overturn would be.
And I bet there are Elvis fans as well. But the odds of either event happening are about the same.
Well if that’s how you feel, I assume that you’re just fine with Kavanaugh.
Yes, I have read, in 8 states it would be automatically illegal. Some states have laws on their books as I read someone from Michigan said, they might still be a pink state as above. It should be left to the states at a minimum.
I don’t really have any problem with him at all. Obviously the court will swing rightwards, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing as “political conservatism.”
And it shouldn’t, it should be about what the writers had in mind, not conservatism or liberalism.
What makes you so sure that Roe isn’t gonna be overturned? Keep in mind, I’m not convinced myself; I’m just curious to your reasoning.
Kavanaugh himself has said it’s established law. It has been confirmed by later SCOTUS rulings, and itself is founded on previous precedent. Kavanaugh’s view pretty much represents the views of what I expect are the overwhelming majority of jurists out there; that Roe v Wade is part of a web of rulings over the last sixty years. You can’t just pick it out of that body of jurisprudence, you would have to go back at least as far as Griswold v Connecticut. It’s not going to happen.
There was an article on Fox New’s site a few weeks ago that made a pretty compelling argument that at this point there’s little or nothing to be gained by continuing to try to hurl stones at Roe v Wade, that the majority of Americans are not in favor of an outright ban on abortions (though some regulation and limitation is viewed as appropriate), and this has been pretty steady for many years now. Rather than pretty pointless attempts to pick more fights with the belief that some proper mix of SCOTUS justices will overturn it and related rulings, perhaps opponents of abortion should do more to prevent abortions by other means; by working on the conditions that lead women to want to have an abortion. In other words, quit looking for some sort judicial solution, and work at the ground level.
But that’s what has happened in these hearings, Kavanaugh said SCOTUS precedent could be overruled and that abortion is not in the Constitution, if he did not say this in the hearings, they found where he said this in the past. Contrary to what you are saying, that has really not been what the hearings are about. Polls show Americans would favor some controls over abortion. Your view is very editorialized.
The usual, this in no way addresses that US tax payer dollars should not be funding Planned Parenthood or virtually any NFP (Not For Profit) associated with the Federal Government, no matter what those tax dollars go for.
Honestly, let’s talk about what happened during the hearings, rather than the same ol’ tired pro-choice arguments. We don’t come here to hear a broken record.
Read a fox piece a few weeks ago, it sounds like someone did not hear what this hearing was about too much.
Oh really? Does it bother someone so much that Mormons in Utah might want to have different laws than what California does? Does one feel like they have to have their views imposed on all communities?
Just interesting tidbits of information here. California’s legality of abortion was signed into law by none another than Ronald Reagan himself. And in Illinois a Republican governor recently signed a free abortion bill and in 6 months there was a fourfold increase in the number of abortions in Illinois. The Hyde Amendment doesn’t apply with state funds. Thing to keep in mind during the Roe v Wade debate.
Kavanuagh was (still is) and appeals court judge. He is bound by judgements made in superior courts to make his decisions. He is doing a little bait and switch here. Of course he held up Roe vs. Wade in an appeals court. If he hadn’t it would have overturned in a court above him. Neil Gorsuch was in the same boat. As an appeals court judge he was bound superior court rulings. So when some asks him about Roe vs. Wade, of course he can honestly say he followed the rulings of the superior court.
Plessy vs. Ferguson was established law upheld segregation. It was overturned by Brown vs. Board of education. Scott vs. Sanford was a supreme court case that upheld that people of African descent could not be U.S. citizens. Why do so many people have this idea that just because SCOTUS said something once it is automatically right and that it will never change?
The Mormons in Utah long ago recognized Federal authority when they banned polygamy. The Bill of Rights is for all Americans, not a buffet that individual states can pick and choose.
Unraveling roe v Wade would take more than unravelling roe v Wade. I think we all know in out heart of hearts that abortion isn’t going anywhere
I think that is a purely emotional appeal. No logic or reason or citing example or sources.
I have. Unraveling roe v Wade requires unraveling both the previous SCOTUS decisions and at least one further confirmatory decision.
New York, Illinois and California are so Democratically dominated, perhaps, standing up for life won’t do much but I would not forget at the same time, maybe half of the states or more, would generally swing pro-life and that includes Wisconsin and Governor Scott Walker. He is facing an uphill battle facing reelection, he won a recall and he has been one of the most pro-life governors there are, just check his record.
Don’t cherry pick Democratically dominated states, I’ve heard people say Illinois may well go the way of California and New York, of course, those states have lenient laws and may have lenient GOP representatives , some of these states can become almost one party states like California is.
More interesting tidbits, I don’t think just throwing up outliers reflects the nation as a whole.
Let’s group same-sex marriage in your equation as well, ooops, that’s legal.
You were also saying earlier how Kavanaugh said abortion is settled law when at the hearing it was clearly brought out that he said abortion is not in the constitution and that the SCOTUS can overrule precedent. You had no idea of this one would think from reading your earlier comment.
We will have to see how elections go, if the Republicans or Trump gain another term in 2020, but I think the change could be coming…if not now, then with the next justice.
There are some low abortion states, believe me, Illinois, NY, California are not among them.
Utah, Wyoming have very low rates, they shouldn’t have to have the same laws as the rest of the country if they don’t want it.
Wyoming abortion rate,
The Guttmacher Institute reports that the 2014 abortion rate for Wyoming was 1.1. In 2011, the abortion rate in Wyoming was 1.1. It was 0.9 in 2008, 0.7 in 2005, and 1.0 in 2000. The 2014 abortion rate across the entire United States was 14.6.
The Guttmacher Institute reports that the 2014 abortion rate for Illinois was 16.3. In 2011, the abortion rate in Illinois was 17. It was 20.5 in 2008, 18.9 in 2005, and 23.2 in 2000. The 2014 abortion rate across the entire United States was 14.6.
Notice the difference. It’s hard for Republicans to win in these states with high abortion rates unless they become part of the choicer side.
Need I point out, some people are fleeing some of these deep blue states and a good number of the states are having significant problems.