Here We Go On Roe
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Abortion, Supreme CourtNow that Alito is on the bench, several very pro-life states are going to start introducing legislation that will test Roe v. Wade.
From the Washington Times:
Legislators in at least five states are proposing bold anti-abortion measures as the Bush administration reshapes the U.S. Supreme Court, a report said.With the goal of challenging the Roe vs. Wade ruling that ensured a woman’s right to an abortion, lawmakers in Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota and Tennessee propose banning all abortions except when the woman’s life is in danger, Stateline.org reported.
If enacted, legal experts said the laws would be the first absolute abortion bans since the landmark 1973 ruling.
But as the article points out, this may not be the best gambit for the pro-life crowd.
It’s as predictable as the sun rising that lower courts would strike down such state bans, said Americans United for Life Director Clarke Forsythe.It would be better to pass legislation “that can be enforced,” such as parental notification requirements and fetal pain warnings, the constitutional lawyer told the state issues organization.
By the way, “fetal pain warnings” essentially mean doctors are required to tell women that after 20 weeks a fetus has the ability to feel physical pain.
Chip, chip, chipping away…
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 1st, 2006 and is filed under Abortion, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 1st, 2006 at 5:47 pm
On Fetal pain warnings:
We certainly wouldn’t want to have women involved in “informed decisions about their pregnancies” now would we? Why should they have to know that, unlike Pro-choice propaganda tells them, that their children are not militant amorphous blobs attacking their uterus and got there by a troop drop from an invasion force.
I mean, reasonable people disagree on abortion, but parental notification laws, fetal pain warnings? Since when do we ignore common sense and factual information on a topic this serious? Only in regards to abortion do certain persons feel that logic and factuality shouldn’t enter into the equation. There is nothing special about abortion, it warrants no special protection and is not sacred writ.
I say leave it to the states and people will act accordingly, not stuff it down everyone’s throat through judicial fiat.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:06 pm
After 4 months, it wouldn’t suprise me that fetuses could feel pain. I suspect it’s a bit later than that, but I’m no expert. A while back, there discussion in the UK as to whether fetuses in late term abortions should get anestesia as a matter of course. This isn’t beyond the pale.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:10 pm
I should add that whatever is decided on an issue like how to deal with fetal pain, the decision should be made based on the best evidence, not on the politics of the issue. If a fetus does feel pain, the idea of cutting it to pieces without anesthesia is abhorent. I hope that’s something we can all agree on.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:59 pm
I’ll take the next huge moral plunge: If a fetus does feel pain, the idea of cutting it to pieces [delete] [delete] is abhorent. And lets face it liberals, it is at a moral message that this bastardly legislation aims. Come on liberals — now is your chance to build that “value bridge” with the Midwesterners and other red-state weirdos. What is the concern –that fewer abortions will happen.
I read Freakonomics last fall and loved it. It argues among other things that the crime rates fall in the 90’s was the result of Roe. More abortions, less criminals, less crime. The book does not support abortions as a means of regulating crime - the authors find the idea abhorent.
This leads me to my next question: If Roe was overturned wouldn’t there be less abortions and thus fewer voting Democrats in 18 years? It’s a twisted bit of bio-politik. I think the overturning of Roe might be the best thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party.
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:29 am
Chop, chop, chopping away… at little arms and legs.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:02 pm
This leads me to my next question: If Roe was overturned wouldn’t there be less abortions and thus fewer voting Democrats in 18 years? It’s a twisted bit of bio-politik. I think the overturning of Roe might be the best thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party.
I assume you mean more voting Democrats, not less. Actually James “Best of the Web Today” Taranto at WSJ/OpinionJournal.com has the same idea. He even calls it “the Roe effect.”
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:44 pm
That is exactly what I meant Josh - thanks - I considered correcting it, but I figured people would pick up the idea anyway. I didn’t think I was the first to think of such a thing - but I had not heard it.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Jimmy, do you want to keep commenting on this site? If you do, you’ll refrain from that. I have no problem whatsoever banning people from these conversations if they’re not adding anything to the debate. Quit trolling and start commenting.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Ummmm yeah, Jimmy - I thought that was a little bit over-the-top. Your comment reminds me of the trucks that drive around crowded public streets and is plastered with pictures of enormous aborted fetuses. Totally inappropriate.
July 21st, 2006 at 1:04 am
Anesthesia is a kind of drug which is given to the patients who are about to undergo an operation where the patients body is to be cut and treated for the diseases of the abnormalities the patient has. Anesthesia is given to the patient just before the operation. anesthesia makes the patient senseless and the patient is deprived of any pain which the patient would suffer during the operation. Thus the doctors can perform the operation easily. Anesthesia is like a boon for the human race, which has mde their miseries and griefs lesser to a great extent.