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

[tshade]

That's really the crux of it. It's nobodies business but the woman, her family and the doctor. Christian Nationalists made it their business. I want to know why we should abide? Their religion is none of my business, and I like it that way.

They don't have the answer to stop abortions anyway

 

[Gordy327]

At the state level...maybe, in some states. But that's where it should be decided. Not at the federal level.

Why not? Some states are arbitrarily and unduly restricting one's rights or autonomy. The states decided before. That's why Roe was decided in the first place.

 

[Mycroft]

Why not? Some states are arbitrarily and unduly restricting one's rights or autonomy. The states decided before. That's why Roe was decided in the first place.

"arbitrarily and unduly"???

Nonsense.

The state's legislative branches are passing laws and the governors are signing laws. That is not arbitrary nor undue. It is in accordance with those state's Constitution.

Furthermore, if the citizens of a state don't like what their elected representatives are doing, they are free to either remove them or elect someone else in the next election.

 

[Gordy327]

"arbitrarily and unduly"???

Nonsense.

The state's legislative branches are passing laws and the governors are signing laws. That is not arbitrary nor undue. It is in accordance with those state's Constitution.

Furthermore, if the citizens of a state don't like what their elected representatives are doing, they are free to either remove them or elect someone else in the next election.

States are passing laws restricting abortion without any legal justification or explanation behind them. Especially when said laws/restrictions contradict the Constitutional tenets of individual rights and autonomy.

 

[dairyair]

S

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?

Simple really.
No gov't should decide what a woman and doctor deem best for a woman's health and reproductive choices should be.

Not the fed or State gov't.

R v W, gave the choice to those involved in said pregnancies.

 

[Buckeyes85]

"arbitrarily and unduly"???

Nonsense.

The state's legislative branches are passing laws and the governors are signing laws. That is not arbitrary nor undue. It is in accordance with those state's Constitution.

Furthermore, if the citizens of a state don't like what their elected representatives are doing, they are free to either remove them or elect someone else in the next election.

That's conveniently naive.

2 years ago, the voters of Ohio passed a constitutional amendment protecting the right to an abortion up to a certain period.
That should have been the end of it.
But the Ohio legislature, controlled in both houses by republicans, have put forth and passed legislation attempting to circumvent the will of the people. And they cannot simply be voted out because the republicans have also gerrymandered the districts to make that nearly impossible.

So now we have on the ballot another amendment to remove legislators from the districting process altogether and put it in the hands of "the people." Guess who's vehemently opposing that, as well? Republicans in power. Of course.

So spare us all the lie that the correct thing was to reverse Roe and send the issue to the citizens of the states. Christian zealot republicans wanted Roe reversed so that the issue of abortion would be in their hands only.

 

[Mycroft]

States are passing laws restricting abortion without any legal justification or explanation behind them.

Then it's up to the citizens of those states to hold their representatives accountable for their actions.

Especially when said laws/restrictions contradict the Constitutional tenets of individual rights and autonomy.

If this is true, then the citizens should file court cases.

 

[Gordy327]

Then it's up to the citizens of those states to hold their representatives accountable for their actions.


If this is true, then the citizens should file court cases.

Inefficient and time consuming. We've seen this in some states over the years. A federal standard such as that established by Roe/Casey eliminates all that and establishes an effective "compromise" as possible.

 

[Mycroft]

Inefficient and time consuming.

Too bad.

That's how it works.

 

[Gordy327]

Too bad.

That's how it works.

Until it doesn't. It didn't work before and it will probably fail again. As I've said before, history is repeating itself.

 

[Diving Mullah]

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 50% of the population really don't like the current status of being nothing more than a fetus carrying bags with no power of self-governing over who gets to use their bodies. And letting states decide. Well ...states have a horrible record of deciding what is good for their minorities or those with less political power, Especially in States that are run overwhelmingly by white old dudes, who still think it is the 1950s.

Human rights, and self-governing, and full autonomy over one's bodies must be a federal-level decision. For example. Right now states that abortion is banned are passing laws to prison those who drive people to other states for abortion. How can this possibly remain a State Matter?

When Slavery was legal in the Southern States. People from the South used to go to the North to steal Black Folks.

This is definitely is a duh. Of course, it can't remain a state decision.

Diving Mullah

 

[Lursa]

Healthcare is a broad term that absolutely includes abortion.

No woman should have to explain their reasoning, or have to request permission to control what happens with her body, period

Not until after the 1st trimester, and even then there were guidelines to when/why states could interfere.

For someone that wants teach others about what Roe did/didn’t do, you’re pretty uninformed.

I'm also waiting for further responses from the OP. I tried to clarify re: healthcare.

@GIJane

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I'm also waiting for further responses from the OP. I tried to clarify re: healthcare.

@GIJane

Looks like OP ran away from her own thread.

 

[The AntiDonald]

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.

Meanwhile woman suffer and, in some cases, die because they have to travel hundreds of miles for something that should be available in their own city. It's almost like some women in red states don't even live in America. And in 99% of those cases, it's the less fortunate who are suffering because they can't afford the time or travel. How is this fair to American women?

How does it make sense to tell a woman who lives in state 'x' that they have less rights than a woman who lives in state 'y'? Yet they are Americans? Righties have a really twisted way of thinking about things.

This is why we need national legislation on the federal level that spells out the rules for everyone. We can argue what the rules should be, but they need to be consistent across all the states.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

This is an issue that should be left up to a woman and her doctor.

We already are hearing of the tragic outcomes of women who could not recieve the health care they need because of some right wing religious zealot.

Why is only abortion left up to a women and her doctor and not any other treatments?

 

[ElChupacabra]

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?

From an access perspective what existed under the Roe v. Wade ruling was preferable because access to care was uniform, versus the patchwork access there is now which forces those who want the care to sometimes have to travel much further than they ever had to before. Even with the restrictions of the Roe v. Wade ruling, its defeat has led to more issues than the ones you're pointing out since the ones you pointed out were provisions the law allowed, but whose potential implementation has not realized into the real world issues the ruling's defeat has.

 

[Gordy327]

Why is only abortion left up to a women and her doctor and not any other treatments?

What other treatments are you referring? All medical treatments are or should be between a doctor and patient. Who else should have any say and why?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

What other treatments are you referring? All medical treatments are or should be between a doctor and patient. Who else should have any say and why?

How about anything regulated by the medical boards? Should just be between just doctors and patients right?

 

[Gordy327]

How about anything regulated by the medical boards? Should just be between just doctors and patients right?

Yes! Medical boards establish standards of practice and ethics. Doctors discuss treatment options and risks/benefits. Patients can either consent or refuse. Why is abortion treated differently as a medical procedure? No other procedure is as is intertwined by law and politics as abortion. Abortion is also a much safer and cost effective medical procedure than the risks and level of care required for gestation and birth.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Yes! Medical boards establish standards of practice and ethics. Doctors discuss treatment options and risks/benefits. Patients can either consent or refuse. Why is abortion treated differently as a medical procedure? No other procedure is as is intertwined by law and politics as abortion. Abortion is also a much safer and cost effective medical procedure than the risks and level of care required for gestation and birth.

Because abortion was treated differently! Roe vs Wade, right? Now abortion will be regulated right along side many other treatments.

 

[Gordy327]

Because abortion was treated differently! Roe vs Wade, right? Now abortion will be regulated right along side many other treatments.

How is abortion different? Its still a medical procedure. Abortion has always been regulated, just like any other medical procedure. Why is extra regulation necessary?

 

[hooligan]

Why, indeed?



The number of women in Texas who died while pregnant, during labor or soon after childbirth skyrocketed following the state’s 2021 ban on abortion care — far outpacing a slower rise in maternal mortality across the nation, a new investigation of federal public health data finds...

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

Exclusive analysis finds the rate of maternal deaths in Texas increased 56% from 2019 to 2022, compared with just 11% nationwide during the same time period.

www.nbcnews.com

You should also ask Amber Thurman why. Oh, wait....

 

[Gordy327]

Why, indeed?



The number of women in Texas who died while pregnant, during labor or soon after childbirth skyrocketed following the state’s 2021 ban on abortion care — far outpacing a slower rise in maternal mortality across the nation, a new investigation of federal public health data finds...

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

Exclusive analysis finds the rate of maternal deaths in Texas increased 56% from 2019 to 2022, compared with just 11% nationwide during the same time period.

www.nbcnews.com

You should also ask Amber Thurman why. Oh, wait....

That just goes to show abortion restrictions or bans only harms women, because cruelty is the point.

 

[Lursa]

Why is only abortion left up to a women and her doctor and not any other treatments?

Can you give some examples of which ones arent? Esp. when we're discussing a much safer procedure/option?

Amputation of healthy limbs would be one. That's judged as a psychological issue tho and doesnt risk the person's life unless they become suicidal.

How about anything regulated by the medical boards? Should just be between just doctors and patients right?

Abortions are conducted within medical regulations for patient safety and standards. All medical procedures are regulated that way. The abortion issue is about "decisions" regarding the procedure. Just like discussing invasive surgery vs laparoscopy, for example.

 

[Lursa]

Because abortion was treated differently! Roe vs Wade, right? Now abortion will be regulated right along side many other treatments.

Because women were being denied abortions. Are there other much safer medical procedures being denied people? RvW was all about protecting women and their healthcare.

The safety of and standards for abortion are regulated just like any other medical procedure...the difference is...women were being denied it...so...why?

RvW challenge case:​

​

"Coffee and Weddington brought a lawsuit on McCorvey’s behalf (who went by the alias “Jane Roe” throughout the case to protect her identity) claiming that the state’s law violated Roe’s constitutional rights. The suit claimed that, while her life was not in danger, Roe had a right to obtain an abortion in a safe, medical environment within her home state. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed, and ruled that the Texas law violated Roe’s right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional." link​

--and--

Directly from RvW:​

​

"The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise. The prevalence of high mortality rates (L: for women, obviously) at illegal "abortion mills" strengthens, rather than weakens, the State's interest in regulating the conditions under which abortions are performed.​

​

More over, the risk to the woman increases as her pregnancy continues. Thus, the State retains a definite interest in protecting the woman's own health and safety when an abortion is proposed at a late stage of pregnancy." (Lursa: nothing to do with the development or even mention of the unborn. It was about women's health and safety.)​

Prior to the 70s, abortion was pretty dangerous. Then with medical advances, abortion had become much much safer than pregnancy/childbirth, and the RvW bench decided the states had no right to deny women the much safer procedure. Re: later/late term abortion, the risks rose significantly...to the woman, that's why options for restrictions there. It had nothing to do with the unborn...in every abortion the unborn dies.​

​