What do you think must occur to realistically overturn Roe v Wade?

Aside from a lot of prayer, what specific steps do you think must be taken by society, pro-lifers and/or otherwise, to have Roe v Wade overturned and have abortion outlawed?

Do you think those who want two gay people to get “married” are taking a bigger stand on that issue than we pro-lifers are taking on abortion?

There has to be a constitutional ammendment.

A very conservative Supreme Court and a very conservative president would probably set us up to have Roe v. Wade overturned, but even then it’s doubtful that it would actually happen.

The way things are going right now, I don’t foresee abortion being outlawed anytime soon (within the next 4 to 10 years), regardless of how many rallies or walks or conferences pro-lifers have.

Look at how the left is attacking our rights, they are not openly trying to outlaw them all at once, they are chipping away at them by steps so small it is sometimes hard to see how they impact us. Maybe we should do the same with little laws such as a 24 hour waiting period, mandatory notification of the father, requiring death certificates, requiring the child be named, allowing the father the right to have a christian burial, publishing the deaths in the obituary columns at the fathers request, requiring psycological counceling be provided to the mother and father, etc.

A president that appoints more pro-life justices before the current ones retire, and appoints enough of them

The Catholic bishops would need to take a consistently and single-mindedly firm stand against abortion. They could end abortion in 24 hours. Daily rosaries in front of abortion mills and state capitals, Congressional offices and the Supreme Court. Public excommunications of politicians who vote for abortion and doctors who perform them. Daily concerted public activity by the bishops. 24 hours.

Several answers above are good ones.
However the biggest thing that is needed is education of the general public and an understanding of the ramifications of rampant abortions (over 4000/day nationwide).
This education must include greater mobilization of people to vote on this issue, and to come out in support of pro-life.
None of this will come about until the population is better educated to understand that the Child in the womb is a human being by any Scientific standard. Never mind about religion - keep it scientific. That “Tissue” growing independently within the mother, and containing the correct number of chromasones is, by sceintific definition a developing and changing human. It will remain a developing and changing human throughout it’s natural life cycle until the day it dies.
This is what we need to convince enough people of. Then the pressure to change the laws will be felt in the halls of government and the Courts and decisions will begin to reflect that belief. OR - Even if the law is not changed and abortion remains legal, the more people who see it as murder, the fewer abortions will be performed.

Call me a dreamer - But Education is the Key.


So, suppose RvW was overturned by the Supreme Court. Then the issue is no longer centralized, but is up to the legislatures in 50 states. Abortion was available in some form in 12 states before RvW. The states will simply enact it in law.

Unfortunately, if it is anything like Canada having abortion being illegal does not stop it. Canada had an anti-abortion but gave it up when we couldn’t convict anybody under it. They would lay charges and the accused would select trial by jury and juries would not convict. Appeal courts overturned the acquittals but were not allowed to impose a guilty verdict. The case had to be sent back for a new trial and the juries turned around and acquitted again.

What is needed is a change it attitude in society, not just a new law.

Some states have already passed laws severely restricting abortion … contingent on the Supreme Court throwing it back to the states.

The power is with the Catholic Bishops.

One lay group is providing sonograms to pregnant women contemplating getting an abortion. It is brilliant because the women see that their baby is NOT a mass of indifferentiated cells. It is a BABY! No excuses.

States have passed such laws, but nobody paid much attention to them. They were a way for legislatures to patronize and get votes from anti-abortion folks. The pro-abortion folks didn’t care much because they see no real chance RvW will be overturned. If that happened, those laws would be squashed like bugs because people want abortion to be available. (Catholics attitudes towards abortion are the same as the ation as a whole.)

The bishops lost all their influence and credibility when they got caught in the priest sex abuse scandal. They really had been respected by a wide ange of people of all religions until then.

I agree-a political solution will not occur until more people begin to understand that the “tissue” in question is actually a baby. Of course, when that happens we won’t need a political solution anymore. Abortion would end because people would stop choosing it.

The Warning that I hear about.

One thing people unfortunately do not seem to realize is that if a conservative had been elected president last year, we would have a very good chance at getting Roe V. Wade overturned sometime in the near future as it is getting time for justices to retire (already had one). However there is nothing we can do about that now, and I would say what we really need to do is make sure we elect conservative congressman in 2010 so that if Obama tries to make more liberal appointments to the court we could potentially stop them. Honestly if he gets his way and gets more liberal justices added to the courts, it could be decades before we would ever be able to get back to the place where we almost have enough votes.

What you say here is one of the primary reasons we shuold oppose FOCA.
The State legislatures are one of our country’s greatest assets for two reasons. First is that they are able to more accurtely reflect the feelings and desires of the population on a local/regional level. Second is that they are a wonderful proving ground for legislation on controversial issues. State governments, by nature, will pass variations of the same law reflecting different views and aspects of an issue. Enacting and enforcing these laws will have differing difficulties and consequences which other state governemts can see. Then, over time, laws can be modified to a “best practices” model.

I will grant that this “ideal” that I outlined rarely happens in the real world, but at tleast the potential is there so long as the States have the rights to pass and enforce the legislation. If the Fed’s Trump this right through FOCA or something similar, we are left with a much weaker union.


Precisely my point as well. People must be educated and gotten to think about this issue.
I’ve been seeing a commercial on TV (usually during a baseball game) of a “Sonogram” and description about how this Child will be abandoned by his father, his mother will struggle to raise him and then it says that despite these hardships this babey will grow up to be the first African-American President of the U.S. It finishes with the slogan - “Life. Imagine the possibilities”.
It’s a great commercial - makes people think and that is the key


Then don’t make the crime one that is open to trial. Look what we are doing here with taxes on items where if they do not pay the appropriate tax they are not guilty of the act it self but of a tax violation and we just take all their belongings. Or make it like a traffic violation where you do not have a right to a trial by jury.

For that to work, one would have to say both Roberts and Alito were fabricating their Senate testimony about RvW being settled law. Do you really think they will vote against RvW?

Don’t dismiss the very strong arguments in favor of FOCA. If abortion is indeed a right guaranteed in the US Constitution, then how much latitude should the states have in limiting it?

For example, can Illinois pass regulations limiting freedom of religious expression? Freedom of press? Can it limit equal opportunity in education decided by Brown v Topeka?

The Griswold v Connectucut contraceptives case is probably a good model. In that case the Supreme Court said the state couldn’t stop distribution of contraceptives. But states do have laws regulating drug dispensation and contraceptives fall under those. So, it is a very fine line one has to walk in trying to limit people’s rights, especially where it can be shown the limitations are designed to prevent exercise of such rights…

An Oklahoma law limiting access to abortion was just struck down by a state court. (The grounds were too many issues in a single bill, not abortion rights.)

The constitution does not protect a “right to murder”

Roe vs Wade was a bad decision based on a minor perceived ambiguity. A new case with a better court could legitimately result in a verdict that states do have the right under the 10th ammendment to regulate abortion.

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.