What happens if Roe v. Wade is reversed?

[Zombie 284]

I'm curious what the legal, practical, and political effect would be if Roe is reversed by a SC with a new Trump justice.

 

As a legal matter, does the legality of abortion just revert to the states so that it is legal in more progressive states and illegal or effectively so in conservative states? Or something in between entirely legal and entirely illegal depending of the blueish or reddish tint of a particular state.

 

As a practical matter, would it make a big difference in the availability of abortion? My understanding is that in red states there are few to no abortion clinics so that women have to travel to a blue state to get an abortion. Would a Roe reversal have anything more than a nominal effect on the number of abortions?

 

As a political matter, does a reversal seismically change the political landscape by motivating people in both camps to fight the issue at the state and federal level? Would women who are pro choice but usually vote GOP for other reasons move in significant numbers to the Democratic party? Perhaps there's no realistic way to predict the effects of such a change in the law. But it's interesting to think of the possibilities.

 

 

 

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk

 

 

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

I go broke from child support. 

[atomheartbevo 89449]

I’m under the impression the SC usually doesn’t reverse such large and fairly recent rulings like that. 

But it would definitely given women another reason to vote against the GOP.  And Trump is giving them plenty right now as it is.

[Chuckie Finster 22600]

In my opinion, it would be a short term victory that would risk crippling the party.  It would not gain them a single vote, but could potentially lose millions.  And it would get immediately challenged as soon as the SCOTUS pendulum swings back to the left.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[atomheartbevo 89449]

9 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

In my opinion, it would be a short term victory that would risk crippling the party.  It would not gain them a single vote, but could potentially lose millions.  And it would get immediately challenged as soon as the SCOTUS pendulum swings back to the left.

The GOP leadership these days seems incredibly focused on short-term victories that will cost the Party in the long run.

That could indicate they see the demographic changes coming sooner than expected, which happened in Texas (Texas flipped to minority-majority a few years ahead of where the census folks had predicted).

[RDCanecutter 26281]

There will be more babies, but the parents will be forced to marry to raise them.

[Pescado_Rojo 19331]

The poors will have more babies. The R's will cut welfare so there won't be any food. Crime will go up, social unrest will go up, the R's will "crack down", and boom...riots in the streets. It will be the early '70s all over again. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

The end of stare decisis on hot-button political issues, and an opportunity to reinterpret the Second Amendment. 

[atomheartbevo 89449]

5 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

The poors will have more babies. The R's will cut welfare so there won't be any food. Crime will go up, social unrest will go up, the R's will "crack down", and boom...riots in the streets. It will be the early '70s all over again. 

This.  It will increase the burden on the federal, state, and local governments, and more money will be spent, which is what the Rs seem to want.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

34 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

In my opinion, it would be a short term victory that would risk crippling the party.  It would not gain them a single vote, but could potentially lose millions.  And it would get immediately challenged as soon as the SCOTUS pendulum swings back to the left.

This is the correct answer. 

There are a significant amount of voters who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal who vote Republican. They would swing HARD to vote Democrat.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

8 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

This is the correct answer. 

There are a significant amount of voters who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal who vote Republican. They would swing HARD to vote Democrat.

There's also a significant number of apathetic citizens who don't think things will ever change and then get motivated when they actually do. 

[Huckleberry 32703]

10 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

This is the correct answer. 

There are a significant amount of voters who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal who vote Republican. They would swing HARD to vote Democrat.

Why would those people vote Republican? In what world is the GOP fiscally conservative? I'm not talking about campaign lies, I'm talking about reality.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Why would those people vote Republican? In what world is the GOP fiscally conservative? I'm not talking about campaign lies, I'm talking about reality.

Reality doesn't matter. The Hannity out front shoulda told ya.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Mr. McGuire: I want to say two words to you. Just two words.

Benjamin: Yes, sir.

Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?

Benjamin: Yes, I am.

Mr. McGuire: Coat Hangers.

Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean?

Mr. McGuire: There's a great future in coat hangers. Think about it. Will you think about it?

[The Royal We 3065]

Let's cut out all sex education classes unless they teach abstinence only, refuse to give away birth control/rubbers for free, cut welfare spending and make abortions illegal.  All at the same time.  Sounds like a great plan!

I think we should try to minimize the number of abortions without making them illegal (sex ed, more adoptions, free birth control, etc).  Having 3 young kids myself and remembering how incredible the new sonograms are, I'm not sure how you could argue that it's not a living being pretty early on.  At the same time, refusing to help address the root cause of unwanted pregnancies is as ignorant as "pray away the gay."

[tantric superman 4667]

Penumbra!

[tantric superman 4667]

13 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

I'm not sure how you could argue that it's not a living being pretty early on.

I'm not either. 

Good thing that isn't the argument.

[Incredulity 11555]

9 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I'm not either. 

Good thing that isn't the argument.

Not sure if serious, or if you've been living under a rock.

[SDG 3319]

Honestly, it won’t have an effect on many peoples lives. Realistically speaking, what % of the population thinks about or has an abortion?  That being said, it isn’t getting overturned and nor should it.   It’s just another piece of news to gather clicks or sell ad space.  

Edited June 28, 2018 by SDG

[Aqua Buddha 14521]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’m under the impression the SC usually doesn’t reverse such large and fairly recent rulings like that. 

But it would definitely given women another reason to vote against the GOP.  And Trump is giving them plenty right now as it is.

This.  It would decimate the modern GOP much like slavery decimated the Whigs.  

The GOP has played the abortion card over the past decades, knowing that it didn't matter.  (Kind of like "repeal and replace.")  If abortion now becomes the issue front and center and it's a "yes/no" question and not frittering around the edges, large blocks of the GOP will split.  They'll be left as a regional party run by evangelicals.  

[scottsins 1953]

6 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

This.  It would decimate the modern GOP much like slavery decimated the Whigs.  

The GOP has played the abortion card over the past decades, knowing that it didn't matter.  (Kind of like "repeal and replace.")  If abortion now becomes the issue front and center and it's a "yes/no" question and not frittering around the edges, large blocks of the GOP will split.  They'll be left as a regional party run by evangelicals.  

My only issue with this take is that currently, red states already bust their asses to pass abortion restrictions and barriers, up to what is permitted by current case law.  I don’t see them keeping the issue alive to motivate the base.  They already show that they do not follow that strategy.

[tantric superman 4667]

13 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Not sure if serious, or if you've been living under a rock. 

I haven't seen any court cases or legitimate sources that make a case that abortion should be legal because the fetus isn't a "living thing".  Not a person under the law, sure.  Not viable, sure.  etc.

[JBJ 3649]

What does overturning Roe look like?  Some 20 states have abortion restrictions that exceed Roe, but have survived challenges.  The counterpoint is that there are also dozens of laws that have been enjoined following Roe, so it isn't dead.

I don't think there's going to be a landmark case that completely turns Roe on itself.  It'll be Roe becoming less and less relevant over time. 

[Incredulity 11555]

5 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I haven't seen any court cases or legitimate sources that make a case that abortion should be legal because the fetus isn't a "living thing".  Not a person under the law, sure.  Not viable, sure.  etc.

legitimate cases?????  I thought we were talking about public opinion and the decimation of the GOP.

[tantric superman 4667]

The idea that this would decimate the GOP gives way to much credence to the brainpan's of current GOP voters.

13 minutes ago, SDG said:

Honestly, it won’t have an effect on many peoples lives. Realistically speaking, what % of the population thinks about or has an abortion?  

  I was stunned when I spoke about the issue with female friends in college and law school and after how many had gotten abortions.  Now granted maybe birth control works a whole lot better now than then.

[tantric superman 4667]

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

legitimate cases?????  I thought we were talking about public opinion and the decimation of the GOP.

You can talk about whatever you want.  I was talking about a specific poster who made an argument that really isn't part of the pro-choice arsenal of arguments. 

[Aqua Buddha 14521]

12 minutes ago, scottsins said:

My only issue with this take is that currently, red states already bust their asses to pass abortion restrictions and barriers, up to what is permitted by current case law.  I don’t see them keeping the issue alive to motivate the base.  They already show that they do not follow that strategy.

I think that's what will happen.  You'll start seeing those states passing laws that ban all abortions for any reason.  These are the true believers.  I laugh at the people on here that thinks the GOP has just given lip service to abortion and doesn't want to overturn Roe.  Nonsense. 

[Aqua Buddha 14521]

9 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

The idea that this would decimate the GOP gives way to much credence to the brainpan's of current GOP voters.

  I was stunned when I spoke about the issue with female friends in college and law school and after how many had gotten abortions.  Now granted maybe birth control works a whole lot better now than then.

Uh, yeah.  Those women prolly got married, moved to the burbs, went to church, and profess to be pro-life.  Sure, why not?  It never meant anything.  It means something now and how do you think those women are going to vote in private?

[Huckleberry 32703]

If it's reversed then the following election will be amazing and protests/political gatherings will get violent.

And then, as I've alluded to on another thread, the right will see that they've been underestimating a frothing voter base voting with their brain stems just like the left underestimated the same thing in 2016.

[Aqua Buddha 14521]

5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

If it's reversed then the following election will be amazing and protests/political gatherings will get violent.

And then, as I've alluded to on another thread, the right will see that they've been underestimating a frothing voter base voting with their brain stems just like the left underestimated the same thing in 2016.

The thing is their hard core base will outright demand they do something.  There is no middle ground for the GOP on this anymore.

[tantric superman 4667]

5 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Uh, yeah.  Those women prolly got married, moved to the burbs, went to church, and profess to be pro-life.  Sure, why not?  It never meant anything.  It means something now and how do you think those women are going to vote in private? 

The one's I know did all that but are generally apolitical but very pro-choice.   As in, could never be Catholic or be friends with a pro-Lifer.  At least that is what they professed to me.

[David Dennison 18659]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

If it's reversed then the following election will be amazing and protests/political gatherings will get violent.

And then, as I've alluded to on another thread, the right will see that they've been underestimating a frothing voter base voting with their brain stems just like the left underestimated the same thing in 2016.

I think this is true. Violence is coming. You can only treat people poorly for so long.

[Theo Huxtable 48]

Is there a single evangelical christian in the world who isn't a racist and overall piece of shit human? As soon as I hear the words "evangelical christian", I immediately think of the Taliban. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

There are  A lot of single issue voters were abortions that single issue, especially in the Catholic faith. I know many personally. I bet it wouldn’t hurt the GOP rolls for a while after the overturning based on a sort of glow that voting for GOP got them what they want, this is my team, etc.  but over the years that glow would fade and people would leave the party for the other reasons. 

[Foosters 17734]

31 minutes ago, JBJ said:

What does overturning Roe look like?  Some 20 states have abortion restrictions that exceed Roe, but have survived challenges.  The counterpoint is that there are also dozens of laws that have been enjoined following Roe, so it isn't dead.

I don't think there's going to be a landmark case that completely turns Roe on itself.  It'll be Roe becoming less and less relevant over time. 

Well, it would look like the SCOTUS holding that the Constitution does not prohibit individual states from passing any laws they want relating to abortion. The holding would be followed by roughly 20 states immediately passing legislation banning all forms of abortion, and some even banning medication like the "day after pill."

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

29 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I think that's what will happen.  You'll start seeing those states passing laws that ban all abortions for any reason.  These are the true believers.  I laugh at the people on here that thinks the GOP has just given lip service to abortion and doesn't want to overturn Roe.  Nonsense. 

Alabama says HI!

[Chuckie Finster 22600]

22 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

There are  A lot of single issue voters were abortions that single issue, especially in the Catholic faith. I know many personally. I bet it wouldn’t hurt the GOP rolls for a while after the overturning based on a sort of glow that voting for GOP got them what they want, this is my team, etc.  but over the years that glow would fade and people would leave the party for the other reasons. 

There are a ton of them, yes, and they all religiously already vote GOP.  There are also plenty of voters who vote GOP in spite of their pro-choice stance.  It's hella dumb to risk losing those votes just to appeal to a group that you already get 100% of the vote from.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[Js1 85110]

6 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Alabama says HI!

Texas would call a special session to do it and pass it within a week.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

There are a ton of them, yes, and they all religiously already vote GOP.  There are also plenty of voters who vote GOP in spite of their pro-choice stance.  Is it worth it to risk losing those votes just to appeal to a group that you already get 100% of the vote from?

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. The GOP can't back down on it's Pro-Life stance. 

[NWBuck 8548]

If RvW is overturned, I'm sure all of the evangelical Christians will work diligently to ensure that their churches and mega churches have affordable child care, parenting classes, and food/medical support for kids, while also pushing for economic reforms that allow one parent to stay at home to disciple raise God's little miracles.

Because that's what most evangelicals do.

[Mr. Drummond 2183]

The Republican party (politicians and leaders) don't want to overturn Roe v Wade anymore than the Democrat leadership cares about fixing  any number of their get out the vote and raise money issues either. 

[NWBuck 8548]

7 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. The GOP can't back down on it's selectively Pro-Life stance. 

FIFY

Edited June 28, 2018 by NWBuck

[David Dennison 18659]

6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Texas would call a special session to do it and pass it within a week.

I know a lot of men who would have had to take women across state lines. 

I'm sure some of those men are posting in this very thread and vote Republican.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

16 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

There are a ton of them, yes, and they all religiously already vote GOP.  There are also plenty of voters who vote GOP in spite of their pro-choice stance.  Is it worth it to risk losing those votes just to appeal to a group that you already get 100% of the vote from?

 I don’t think risk is really part of the equation anymore. They fought on this issue for so long that now that Kennedy is retiring they might win no matter what they do. 

 My guess is that they still probably need one more of the liberal justices to retire. I imagine  it’s not over yet.  They probably have Thomas Alito and Gorsuch and presumably the new guy. I bet roberts would not vote to overturn it. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

[formermav43 4599]

32 minutes ago, Theo Huxtable said:

Is there a single evangelical christian in the world who isn't a racist and overall piece of shit human? As soon as I hear the words "evangelical christian", I immediately think of the Taliban. 

Well not everyone can be as tolerant as you are.

[Huckleberry 32703]

35 minutes ago, Theo Huxtable said:

Is there a single evangelical christian in the world who isn't a racist and overall piece of shit human? As soon as I hear the words "evangelical christian", I immediately think of the Taliban. 

Yes, there are many. Unfortunately they are the quiet ones and they need to be louder and make their voices heard.

The family separation thing was a good start for them.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Huckleberry

[David Dennison 18659]

Also, if Roe is overturned, I expect the Democrats to pack the court the next time they control Congress and the White House.

Edited June 28, 2018 by David Dennison

[Js1 85110]

It just feels like all this Roe v. Wade talk is the distraction while they go for Obergefell, religious freedom discrimination, voting rights, etc. first when everyone else is focused on abortion.

[David Dennison 18659]

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It just feels like all this Roe v. Wade talk is the distraction while they go for Obergefell, religious freedom discrimination, voting rights, etc. first when everyone else is focused on abortion.

I think distraction is a pipe dream of the right. I think the left is laser focused.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

25 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Also, if Roe is overturned, I expect the Democrats to pack the court the next time they control Congress and the White House.

Dems should do that whether or not Roe is overturned.   Two new seats to get back the stolen one.   The consequence of overturning Roe will be to open up other settled precedent like Citizens United and Heller.