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

[SNOWFLAKE]

Ok. LET the people decide.

Clearly you don't get it. Let WHO decide? The woman? Her doctor? Her family? OR THE STATE? You say Ok, let the people decide, but what you really mean to say is let the State decide. Now some states are thinking about outlawing IVF. You simple don't get that when young girls who haven't reached voting age yet do reach that age, the Republicans are going to lose the female vote far more than they are already losing it. It's barbaric. It's the kind of practice you see in Muslim countries. Forcing women to comply by what YOU think is morally correct.

SO, spare us your "let the people decide" mantra, because clearly, YOU are not in favor of letting women (who are people btw) decide.

 

[Michael Cole]

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?

Because a woman's bodily autonomy is a right. Rights don't end at the state line.

Under Roe, total bans and the popular 6-week ban were not legal. So, I'm not sure why women in those states wouldn't want to go back.

 

[GIJane]

sometimes it is healthcare.......most of the time, in fact

Most of the time? So you're saying over 50% of the time a woman gets an abortion because of rape, incest, or possible danger to the health of the woman? I have to call bullshit on that. OF the women I know who had abortions, NONE of them did it for those reasons. All did it in the first trimester.

If you're going to say it was because of the mental health of the woman, I would have to disagree.

 

[BirdinHand]

Most of the time? So you're saying over 50% of the time a woman gets an abortion because of rape, incest, or possible danger to the health of the woman? I have to call bullshit on that. OF the women I know who had abortions, NONE of them did it for those reasons. All did it in the first trimester.

If you're going to say it was because of the mental health of the woman, I would have to disagree.

It’s none of my damn business why anyone has an abortion. I had one. I made that choice for MY reasons. And I don’t regret the choice I made.

My body, my choice.


“Mind your own business” as Walz says

 

[Isidore]

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.

Couldn't states enact their own abortion restrictions under Roe as long as it didn't circumvent Roe?

In other words, individual states could make abortion less restrictive than Roe, but not more restrictive than Roe.

For someone that is pro-choice, how is that not substantially better than what we have now?

IANAL, so maybe I am missing something about the legal framework under Roe (and Casey).

 

[Ginger Ale]

We first have to establish the motive for throwing Roe to the states after a 50 year precedent. Why do you think this was an issue for MAGAs in the first place?
Let's start there.

Why was it such a priority of Trump to wage this assault on women whom the majority of didn't want Roe disturbed? The justices all stated they wouldn't **** with a 50 precedent, yet they did. So, they were lying for this very purpose and they executed it shortly after being seated. Why? What is the motive?

A small group of the religious right had been eager to take Roe down, (Heritage Foundation) despite the majority of women in this countries opposition. Was its purpose to allow religion to influence policy? Was it a stepping stone to religion having more weight in our courts decisions? I think so.

 

[GIJane]

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 .

I agree. But I hear that being said. "We need to go back to Roe": "Kamala Harris jumped into the presidential race with a broad pledge to “restore reproductive freedom.” The Harris campaign specified Monday that she’s calling for restoring Roe v. Wade"
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/29/kamala-harris-abortion-restoring-roe-00171657
Read it yourself.

The fact that she says that in contrast to your logical point shows how disconnected she is with the law. And CERTIAINLY should not represent OUR rights as women.

 

[Michael Cole]

I agree. But I hear that being said. "We need to go back to Roe": "Kamala Harris jumped into the presidential race with a broad pledge to “restore reproductive freedom.” The Harris campaign specified Monday that she’s calling for restoring Roe v. Wade"
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/29/kamala-harris-abortion-restoring-roe-00171657
Read it yourself.

The fact that she says that in contrast to your logical point shows how disconnected she is with the law. And CERTIAINLY should not represent OUR rights as women.

How disconnected she is with the law? The law has been her entire career.

It's a campaign slogan.

 

[BirdinHand]

I agree. But I hear that being said. "We need to go back to Roe": "Kamala Harris jumped into the presidential race with a broad pledge to “restore reproductive freedom.” The Harris campaign specified Monday that she’s calling for restoring Roe v. Wade"
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/29/kamala-harris-abortion-restoring-roe-00171657
Read it yourself.

The fact that she says that in contrast to your logical point shows how disconnected she is with the law. And CERTIAINLY should not represent OUR rights as women.

Everyone understands VERY clearly what Harris says because she has stated that when Congress gives her a passed bill, restoring the protections of Roe, she will sign it into law.

Please…tell us how a woman that is a law school graduate, was a prosecutor, was a district attorney, was a state attorney general, then a senator and now the VP is “disconnected from the law”

So spin the bullshit and trying to muddy the waters with nonsense crap elsewhere.
It’s transparent and not at all clever.

 

[craig]

I agree. But I hear that being said. "We need to go back to Roe": "Kamala Harris jumped into the presidential race with a broad pledge to “restore reproductive freedom.” The Harris campaign specified Monday that she’s calling for restoring Roe v. Wade"
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/29/kamala-harris-abortion-restoring-roe-00171657
Read it yourself.

The fact that she says that in contrast to your logical point shows how disconnected she is with the law. And CERTIAINLY should not represent OUR rights as women.

Surveys have show that a broad majority supports an abortion law with restrictions very similar to Roe.

 

[Candyman]

Why? Because I’d like women to have a choice in whether they want an abortion or not.

I know, for Trumpist assholes choice is a foreign concept. Choice is anathema to authoritarians.

 

[Ginger Ale]

Wins—and Woes—Abound 1 Year After Roe v. Wade Overturned​

Wins—and Woes—Abound 1 Year After Roe v. Wade Overturned

One year ago, on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court righted a grave wrong by overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion throughout the United States. In its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, the court said that Americans can protect unborn...

www.heritage.org

Why is the Heritage Foundation in a war with women and their reproductive health?

They're now focused on continuing this fight. I do not see any such motive other than preventing abortions throughout our nation.

This has noting to do with "states" rights! This was just the road they took to end abortion because the states have the ability to forgo human rights.

This is not the end of it I'm afraid.

 

[BirdinHand]

Wins—and Woes—Abound 1 Year After Roe v. Wade Overturned​

Wins—and Woes—Abound 1 Year After Roe v. Wade Overturned

One year ago, on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court righted a grave wrong by overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion throughout the United States. In its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, the court said that Americans can protect unborn...

www.heritage.org

Why is the Heritage Foundation in a war with women and their reproductive health?

They're now focused on continuing this fight. I do not see any such motive other than preventing abortions throughout our nation.

This has noting to do with "states" rights! This was just the road they took to end abortion because the states have the ability to forgo human rights.

This is not the end of it I'm afraid.

It’s but the tip of an iceberg unfortunately.

It’s really quite disappointing to see just how close we are to the edge.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Couldn't states enact their own abortion restrictions under Roe as long as it didn't circumvent Roe?

In other words, individual states could make abortion less restrictive than Roe, but not more restrictive than Roe.

For someone that is pro-choice, how is that not substantially better than what we have now?

IANAL, so maybe I am missing something about the legal framework under Roe (and Casey).

The answer to your question is that NOW it is entirely up to each State to determine how free or how restrictive abortion "rights" can be.

This is what Trump supports, and I agree with this. Why? Because if you want abortion "rights" then you can work with your State government to determine what those rights will be. If you oppose abortion, then the same holds true.

Then depending on which way YOU feel, you have the freedom to relocate to a State which reflects your views on the subject. What is the problem with this?

 

[craig]

The answer to your question is that NOW it is entirely up to each State to determine how free or how restrictive abortion "rights" can be.

This is what Trump supports, and I agree with this. Why? Because if you want abortion "rights" then you can work with your State government to determine what those rights will be. If you oppose abortion, then the same holds true.

Then depending on which way YOU feel, you have the freedom to relocate to a State which reflects your views on the subject. What is the problem with this?

Do feel the same way about civil rights? Up to the states?

 

[renee]

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.

Y so what you are saying is that a woman should have to breed against her will. you act as though pregnancy, delivery and responsibility for an unwanted child for 18 years is just a”mere inconvenience. practically all abortions are done in the first trimester when there is absolutely no viability later abortions are you usually for good reasons?.
I have to laugh when you talk about responsibility. A woman who is irresponsible and gets pregnant is obviously responsible enough to raise a child that she doesn’t want and may not be able to afford.lol if men were irresponsible, they should be forced to pay childcare for 18 years whether the woman wants him to see the child or not. Men would change the view probably

 

[renee]

Ok. LET the people decide. Don't go BACK to Roe, which I hear people say.

I think it should only be women who decide because it is only women who are being forced to breed against their will

 

[renee]

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.

First of all, I don’t think you should personify a ZEF.. It is not a baby.
What about the woman who is poor and cannot leave her children to go to another state?

 

[Lursa]

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?

No, that's wrong. Because during Roe and now, states can choose to have no additional regulations on abortion. Including in the 3rd trimester.

And several still dont. The states COULD choose that then. And now.

 

[Buckeyes85]

I agree. But I hear that being said. "We need to go back to Roe": "Kamala Harris jumped into the presidential race with a broad pledge to “restore reproductive freedom.” The Harris campaign specified Monday that she’s calling for restoring Roe v. Wade"
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/29/kamala-harris-abortion-restoring-roe-00171657
Read it yourself.

The fact that she says that in contrast to your logical point shows how disconnected she is with the law. And CERTIAINLY should not represent OUR rights as women.

Your analysis/ approach is a "miss the forest for the trees" issue.
The issue the court decided was not so simplistic as who gets to decide when abortion can be restricted, but whether the right to make such a decision is a right which our constitution protects.

Literalists say: it's not written in there so you don't have it. In so doing, the literalists/conservatives ignore the most basic fact that the constitution does not grant rights to the people. We the people have the rights. The bill of rights highlights rights that the government cannot infringe upon. And by no means was the bill of rights meant to be all inclusive. In fact the 10th amendment makes clear- the people, or the states have all the rights not assigned to the federal government via the constitution.

But hey, if we want to go back to the beginning and apply the bill of rights as written, let's kick back to the states the right to ban firearms, the right to ban speech, etc. There is no constitutional amendment stating those protections are a restriction on anyone other than the federal government. You ok, with that? Kick it back to the states where it belongs?

 

[Gordy327]

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.

Because many states historically have done poorly with individual right and autonomy. History seems to be repeating itself. At least Roe/Casey established a standard applicable to all equally and was the proverbial and near literal middle ground of the issue.

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.

Roe merely said no abortion restrictions in the 1st Trimester, as part of the then trimester standard. Casey expanded on that to go up to viability. The states could still restrict abortions after those respective points. With Dobbs, some states are passing seemingly arbitrary restiction points for no good reason or justification.

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?

Disagree. See first statement. States which already have more relaxed abortion restrictions are unchanged. But other states are now making more abortion stringent restrictions. That's not moving forward. That's moving backwards to the pre-Roe era. What's really sad and telling is some people seem proud or happy about that.

 

[instagramsci]

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.

A dramatic rise in pregnant women dying in Texas after abortion ban​

From 2019 to 2022, the rate of maternal mortality cases in Texas rose by 56%, compared with just 11% nationwide during the same time period

idk maybe this has something to do with it

 

[Mycroft]

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?

They don't want to go back to RvW. They know that won't happen. What they want now is to take the decision away from the states by having the federal government pass legislation. Not surprising, since the left LOVES their federal government control.

 

[Individual]

Ok. LET the people decide. Don't go BACK to Roe, which I hear people say.

LET the Woman decide. Neither government nor other people should impose upon Her decision.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

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.

Based on what you have written here, I would recommend you never have an abortion. However, you should never be put in charge of making that decision for someone else. You are neither qualified to make medical decisions or have standing with a woman to whom you are not married to make life changing decisions with/for her. It does not matter what YOU would do in her circumstances.

As far as the right to privacy goes, as stated in the Roe decision:

I recently underwent a surgery. I had to consider the risks vs the potential benefits as well as how the procedure would affect my future. At no time did anyone suggest I should consider discussing the matter with anyone but my doctors and my family. In fact, I had to sign a document attesting to the fact that I had been duly informed of the risks and potential adverse outcomes. I also had to acknowledge in writing that I had been informed of my rights under HIPAA, the law that keeps my medical records private.

This is standard practice everywhere in medicine. It is only in the case of abortion that people think that they are entitled to weigh in on someone else's medical procedures.

And let's not play the 'killing babies is wrong' card. Right to Life is about control. Otherwise, they would require that every baby born be provide with everything they need to start life outside of the womb. They would demand laws that the baby have adequate nutrition, appropriate neonatal medical care, shelter, clothing, and education. They do not,. In fact, many of these Pro-Life advocates want to do away with many of the government programs that make a poor mother's plight bearable.