• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Roe V. Wade: Why Do People Want to Go BACK To It?

GIJane

GIJane

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2024
Messages
2,731
Reaction score
1,550
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
It makes me wonder why people in politics (primarily on the Left) think going BACK to Roe V Wade is better than what we have now. Which is let the STATES decide.

I bring this up because I don't think many people understand what Roe says about abortion. While it is true Roe forbade the outright banning, it however was NOT what people think it was.

Here are the pertinent detail:

On Jan 22, 1973, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down the Texas law banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure nationwide. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the court declared that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment.

The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman.

In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.

In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

While I think the right for an abortion is a right a women should have, going BACK to Roe is actually more restrictive than moving forward. It, by LAW, puts some of the rights in the hands of GOVERNMENT as opposed to PEOPLE. Is THIS what you REALLY want?
 
GIJane said:
It makes me wonder why people in politics (primarily on the Left) think going BACK to Roe V Wade is better than what we have now. Which is let the STATES decide.
Click to expand...
It takes away healthcare rights of women...
It needs to be protected by the constitution
 
GIJane said:
It makes me wonder why people in politics (primarily on the Left) think going BACK to Roe V Wade is better than what we have now. Which is let the STATES decide.

I bring this up because I don't think many people understand what Roe says about abortion. While it is true Roe forbade the outright banning, it however was NOT what people think it was.

Here are the pertinent detail:

On Jan 22, 1973, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down the Texas law banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure nationwide. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the court declared that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment.

The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman.

In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.

In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

While I think the right for an abortion is a right a women should have, going BACK to Roe is actually more restrictive than moving forward. It, by LAW, puts some of the rights in the hands of GOVERNMENT as opposed to PEOPLE. Is THIS what you REALLY want?
Click to expand...
Couple of things. You got is basically correct. I disagree that it's a right women should have without any restrictions, if a right at all. The decision said its a right protected in the right to privacy of the 14th amendment. However, nowhere in the 14th does it mention abortion . It was Blackmun's interpretation of what he felt the 14th meant. Basically of the nearly 1 million abortion that take place each year in the U.S. less than 3% are for the commonly debated "exceptions", rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality and health/life of the mother. The other 97+% are about convenience, or more accurately inconvenience. The mother simply doesn't want the child. With modern birth control the unwanted pregnancy rate should never be as high as it is. Responsibility for ones behavior seems to be ignored in this matter. Of course the other issue is one of the life of the many babies that are being taken as if they were trash to be disposed of.
 
GIJane said:
It makes me wonder why people in politics (primarily on the Left) think going BACK to Roe V Wade is better than what we have now. Which is let the STATES decide.

I bring this up because I don't think many people understand what Roe says about abortion. While it is true Roe forbade the outright banning, it however was NOT what people think it was.

Here are the pertinent detail:

On Jan 22, 1973, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down the Texas law banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure nationwide. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the court declared that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment.

The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman.

In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.

In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

While I think the right for an abortion is a right a women should have, going BACK to Roe is actually more restrictive than moving forward. It, by LAW, puts some of the rights in the hands of GOVERNMENT as opposed to PEOPLE. Is THIS what you REALLY want?
Click to expand...

It was kind of the perfect compromise.
 
GIJane said:
It makes me wonder why people in politics (primarily on the Left) think going BACK to Roe V Wade is better than what we have now. Which is let the STATES decide.

I bring this up because I don't think many people understand what Roe says about abortion. While it is true Roe forbade the outright banning, it however was NOT what people think it was.

Here are the pertinent detail:

On Jan 22, 1973, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down the Texas law banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure nationwide. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the court declared that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment.

The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman.

In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.

In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

While I think the right for an abortion is a right a women should have, going BACK to Roe is actually more restrictive than moving forward. It, by LAW, puts some of the rights in the hands of GOVERNMENT as opposed to PEOPLE. Is THIS what you REALLY want?
Click to expand...
You have some good points. To me allowing states to set the rules means a wider span of possibilities of possible law structures. Lefties always seem to seek the "one and done" approach, while I think this is an issue states may have to work with and alter for several years.
 
Congress has the power to codify abortion rights at the federal level. They'll need to amend the Constitution first though. Until then, the States have power and authority to determine the abortion rights and statutes within their respective states. (re: Amendment X)

SCOTUS used Amendment X as justification for overturning Roe v Wade.
 
I’ve come to the conclusion that Handmaid’s Tale is an appropriate metaphor in these conversations.


Many women (and men) see the overturning of Roe as the direct frontal attack on women’s rights that it is. And also can see the Christian nationalism scratching at the door…and how detrimental that will be to American society. Ending decades of progress and likely coming with gigantic tolls for many.

But…we also have other women who are unable to see that.

Perhaps they even agree with the outcome…or like the idea of what they’re being sold within their conservative circles.

Those that do, in my experience, tend to fancy that they’d be the “Captain’s wives” status within Gilead.

In reality, they’re these women:

IMG_3108.jpeg

I wonder if they’ll figure it out before or after shit is too late.
 
Because it worked. Now we have lots of women who no longer have agency over heir own body and are second class citizens again. Women worked so hard to break out of patriarchal bondage and don't want to go back.
 
SkyChief said:
Congress has the power to codify abortion rights at the federal level. They'll need to amend the Constitution first though. Until then, the States have power and authority to determine the abortion rights and statutes within their respective states. (re: Amendment X)

SCOTUS used Amendment X as justification for overturning Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...

Where Jim Crow used to reside.
 
Bullseye said:
You have some good points. To me allowing states to set the rules means a wider span of possibilities of possible law structures. Lefties always seem to seek the "one and done" approach, while I think this is an issue states may have to work with and alter for several years.
Click to expand...

Trump judges will be working heartily to ban it nationally as much as they can.
 
SkyChief said:
Congress has the power to codify abortion rights at the federal level. They'll need to amend the Constitution first though. Until then, the States have power and authority to determine the abortion rights and statutes within their respective states. (re: Amendment X)
Click to expand...
State governments powers should be what the people of those States allow.
But Rights should be recognized equally by Federal law, if necessary.
If left to the States, then by law the maximum penalty should, IMO, excommunication from religious associations.
 
tshade said:
It takes away healthcare rights of women...
It needs to be protected by the constitution
Click to expand...
Having an abortion 95% of the time has nothing to do with "health care". Roe never mentioned health care in any shape form or fashion. Roe, however, says the STATE has the right to determine if YOU can have an abortion.
 
rickc said:
Give control of women's bodies to a bunch of white right wing politicians. No way!!!

Let the people decide?

They are afraid to even put it to a vote in those red states. Fighting it legally and illegally.
Click to expand...

Ok. LET the people decide. Don't go BACK to Roe, which I hear people say.
 
I like how this constant refrain about it being the up to the states seems to tickle Righties, while never saying ANYTHING about the deaths that have occurred since states have started to ban abortions or pass laws where a doctor can be charged for performing one. Pretend all you like folks, anyone with a clear conscience, a clear understanding of what is at stake, can see thru your BS. It's control. Plain and simple. YOU believe women should have their babies and are jumpin' for joy that so many red states are now making abortion practically impossible. And then you PRETEND it's all about states' rights.
Any man worthy of being called a man would stand by his woman, whether his daughter, his sister, and yes, even his mate, and only little insecure p*ssies would think it is ok to dictate to a woman what she should be allowed to do to her body or not. You can't call a man who puts his own beliefs above the women he claims to love - a man. He isn't.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Couple of things. You got is basically correct. I disagree that it's a right women should have without any restrictions, if a right at all. The decision said its a right protected in the right to privacy of the 14th amendment. However, nowhere in the 14th does it mention abortion . It was Blackmun's interpretation of what he felt the 14th meant. Basically of the nearly 1 million abortion that take place each year in the U.S. less than 3% are for the commonly debated "exceptions", rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality and health/life of the mother. The other 97+% are about convenience, or more accurately inconvenience. The mother simply doesn't want the child. With modern birth control the unwanted pregnancy rate should never be as high as it is. Responsibility for ones behavior seems to be ignored in this matter. Of course the other issue is one of the life of the many babies that are being taken as if they were trash to be disposed of.
Click to expand...
In 1868 would that even be a consideration?
 
GIJane said:
Ok. LET the people decide. Don't go BACK to Roe, which I hear people say.
Click to expand...
Well, Roe can’t come “back”. Roe wasn’t a law, it was a SCOTUS ruling.


What will happen is a federal law enshrining the right to access abortion likely until the point of viability.

As a first federal step. From there, work towards a Constitutional Amendment will continue, but will take time.

States (such as mine) will continue to protect access to abortion at any point in a pregnancy - but a federal law will give access back to the women who had their autonomy stripped from them by Trump and his SCOTUS and the merry band of Christian nationalists and religious zealots that had been attacking Roe for decades because they can’t stand women having control of their own bodies.


Oh…and millions upon millions upon millions of voters - both men and especially women- will continue to vote against the GOP because of this. For quite some time.

The dog caught the car 🤷‍♀️.
 
GIJane said:
In 1868 would that even be a consideration?
Click to expand...

Don't let him kid. Overturning oie was the first time in our history the Court rescinded a right it had affirmed, twice.

The right-wing justices simply oppose abortion and that's why they overturned it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom