What is stopping the current government from making abortion illegal in the USA?

[chevyontheriver]

Forgive me, for joining the conversation late and not reading the nearly 200 posts preceding this one. I will ask the unanswered question I asked in a related thread. If abortion is made illegal again, what would you deem an appropriate consequence for those involved? The child bearer? The provider?

America's already incarcerates more persons per capita than most other nations. It seems that "lock 'em up" is all we know to do with people. What would you do to these violators and for how long?

The provider? Sure. Lock 'em all up. Kermit Gosnell needs some company.

The mother? The assistance she really needs to make a go of it.

 

[Vicomte13]

But remember that overturning Roe wont necessarily make abortion illegal. It simply returns control to the states. Some states will undoubtably outlaw abortion--hopefully allowing exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. However it will remain legal in other states.

It depends on how the Supreme Court overturns it. They could overturn it on federalism grounds, and the issue would then return to the states. Then again, they could overturn it on the grounds that the unborn is a person, under the Constitution, who cannot be deprived of life and who is entitled, as a federal constitutional matter, to equal protection under the laws. In that case, universal abortion on demand as a right of the mother would be overturned by universal right to life of the unborn person, in both cases because "the Constitution requires..." It just depends on the whimsy of five justices.

 

[Vicomte13]

Forgive me, for joining the conversation late and not reading the nearly 200 posts preceding this one. I will ask the unanswered question I asked in a related thread. If abortion is made illegal again, what would you deem an appropriate consequence for those involved? The child bearer? The provider?

America's already incarcerates more persons per capita than most other nations. It seems that "lock 'em up" is all we know to do with people. What would you do to these violators and for how long?

Well, I'd start from the premise that the unborn baby is a person, and that's the reason that we have the law prohibiting killing it. When people break that law, they are engaging in the premeditated, surgical slaying of a person, which is to say, first degree murder, and would logically all bear the consequences of that.

 

[Archivist]

It depends on how the Supreme Court overturns it. They could overturn it on federalism grounds, and the issue would then return to the states. Then again, they could overturn it on the grounds that the unborn is a person, under the Constitution, who cannot be deprived of life and who is entitled, as a federal constitutional matter, to equal protection under the laws. In that case, universal abortion on demand as a right of the mother would be overturned by universal right to life of the unborn person, in both cases because "the Constitution requires..." It just depends on the whimsy of five justices.

Doubtful that your second possibility would happen given that the Cobstitution provides that citizenship doesn't begin until birth (14th Amendment--All persons born...). Not saying that the Court couldn't just ignore that, but I doubt it.

 

[Archivist]

Yes, reverting decision to the states would be a given if Roe v. Wade is overturned. And my question still remains unanswered.

If the law goes back to what it was--quickening--that wouldn't be an issue except in the case of late-term abortions.

 

[Vicomte13]

Doubtful that your second possibility would happen given that the Cobstitution provides that citizenship doesn't begin until birth (14th Amendment--All persons born...). Not saying that the Court couldn't just ignore that, but I doubt it.

The Constitution is silent on when personhood begins. There have been court cases on the matter, but of course the Supreme Court has the power to set new precedent on the matter.

 

[Archivist]

The Constitution is silent on when personhood begins. There have been court cases on the matter, but of course the Supreme Court has the power to set new precedent on the matter.

It is silent on personhood but not on citizenship. That's why the Roe court cited the 14th Amendment.

As I said before, I don't try to predict what the Court will do. Frankly I don't expect that the Court will ever completely overturn Roe, but I could be wrong.

 

[Vicomte13]

It is silent on personhood but not on citizenship. That's why the Roe court cited the 14th Amendment.

As I said before, I don't try to predict what the Court will do. Frankly I don't expect that the Court will ever completely overturn Roe, but I could be wrong.

I don't think they ever will either, because the path to becoming a Supreme Court Justice is long, and goes through a variety of courts and cases, and before that, law school. The very nature of the people who sit on the high court is to consider the consequences of what they do. Most have a healthy respect for the concept of liberty, whether from the Right or the Left wing perception. Religious people can and do sit on the court, but the screening process eliminates the religious fanatics.

So all of the Justices will always think hard about what it is they unleash by reversing Roe. No female justice will ever agree to that, because no female becomes a Supreme Court Justice without having put her career first and foremost - and the backstop of abortion is one of the safety nets that enables that sort of career path for huge numbers of women.

Every one of them sitting up there thinks through the consequences, and not one of them will simply shrug his shoulders blythely and say "God's will be done", because no Supreme Court Justice places his conception of the law of God above his conception of his duty to the laws of the state. One does not become a Supreme Court Justice in the first place if one has that sort of viewpoint. State Supreme Court? Sure. Alabama, places like that, will vote for a religious zealot on the high court. The Senate won't. And the people won't put a President like that in the White House to nominate such types.

 

[Episaw]

And they should not boast, for the Republican Party has continuously controlled the Supreme Court since 1969, with a brief 6-month hiatus that was a tied court from the death of Scalia until Gorsuch took the bench. It was a Republican Supreme Court that gave us Roe. A Republican Supreme Court that gave us Casey. A Republican President who, as governor of California, signed the bill legalizing abortion out there. Republicans have put NINE justices on the Supreme Court since Roe, NINE, and yet they never manage to install a pro-life majority.

This is because the Republicans are liars. They PRETEND to be pro-life, in order to dupe the rank and file Christian Republican voters. But they never use their power to actually strike down Roe. They never had any intention of doing so. It's always tax cuts and deregulation and war and defense contracts. But Roe? They've always had the power to strike it down. They haven't. Because they don't want to.

I think you will find that Obama had a Democrat pro-death majority.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think you will find that Obama had a Democrat pro-death majority.

Not every member of the Supremes votes true to expectations. Kennedy in particular votes far from initial expectations. The rest of them are more or less predictable. And that goes for 'Catholic' Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, who will be a predictable vote to maintain abortion. Catholic in name only?

The religious makeup of the court is five Catholics, three Jews, one Episcopalian. Three of the Catholics would probably vote to end abortion, one (Sotomayor) would almost certainly vote to preserve it, and one (Kennedy) is a wild card. If Gorsuch the Episcopalian votes to end abortion then it's 4:4 with wildcard Kennedy as decider.

Ruth Ginsburg and Kennedy are both rumored to be ready to retire. We'll see.

 

[Archivist]

Not every member of the Supremes votes true to expectations. Kennedy in particular votes far from initial expectations. The rest of them are more or less predictable. And that goes for 'Catholic' Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, who will be a predictable vote to maintain abortion. Catholic in name only?

The religious makeup of the court is five Catholics, three Jews, one Episcopalian. Three of the Catholics would probably vote to end abortion, one (Sotomayor) would almost certainly vote to preserve it, and one (Kennedy) is a wild card. If Gorsuch the Episcopalian votes to end abortion then it's 4:4 with wildcard Kennedy as decider.

Ruth Ginsburg and Kennedy are both rumored to be ready to retire. We'll see.

I think Ginsburg will try to hang in there until we have either a Democrat president or a Democrat-majority Senate or both. Just not sure if her health will allow her to do that. Kennedy, on the other hand, will almost certainly retire sometime during Trump's term.

 

[RogerRoger]

However, the operations of the courts are esoteric to most people. Most do not realize that judges are appointed partisans. Democrat judges certainly know their role and act the part of partisan stalwarts. Republican judges do too, and they put Roe in place and extended it with Casey. And they put Kelo in place. But the people, particularly Republican people, choose to mask their eyes and refuse to acknowledge that the Supreme Court is a political body.

I'm not sure I follow this - if Republican courts established Roe AND Casey, how does that confirm their partisanship? Unless we accept the theory that Republicans do not actually want abortion abolished (or, don't want to accept the social/political cost of such an effort), that doesn't make sense because that would be evidence that they are voting due to the merit of the winning legal argument AGAINST ideological position

 

[RogerRoger]

Not every member of the Supremes votes true to expectations. Kennedy in particular votes far from initial expectations. The rest of them are more or less predictable. And that goes for 'Catholic' Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, who will be a predictable vote to maintain abortion. Catholic in name only?

The religious makeup of the court is five Catholics, three Jews, one Episcopalian. Three of the Catholics would probably vote to end abortion, one (Sotomayor) would almost certainly vote to preserve it, and one (Kennedy) is a wild card. If Gorsuch the Episcopalian votes to end abortion then it's 4:4 with wildcard Kennedy as decider.

Ruth Ginsburg and Kennedy are both rumored to be ready to retire. We'll see.

I believe that instead of questioning their faith or adherence, it's more likely that they are actually fulfilling their job and coming to the conclusion they deem correct based on the case and facts at hand. In that context, it's possible that a 'true Catholic' (I don't like talking in those terms) could vote against their faith/conscience and instead fulfill their duty to the role, constitution, and the nation.

Whether this is acceptable from a Christian perspective is another matter for discussion.

 

[Vicomte13]

I think you will find that Obama had a Democrat pro-death majority.

You're a Republican.

Unless we accept the theory that Republicans do not actually want abortion abolished (or, don't want to accept the social/political cost of such an effort),

Accept reality. That is precisely right.

 

[RogerRoger]

So all of the Justices will always think hard about what it is they unleash by reversing Roe. No female justice will ever agree to that, because no female becomes a Supreme Court Justice without having put her career first and foremost - and the backstop of abortion is one of the safety nets that enables that sort of career path for huge numbers of women.

I know your point about safety nets doesn't necessarily reflect the people who actually go through with the procedure, and more refers to the relatively safety of having the option, but I wanted to clarify who is actually going through with the procedure.

A Guttmacher report from 2014 found that of those who went through with an abortion:

• 75% were classified as low income
• 49% were living below the federal poverty line, which ranged from almost $12 000 for a single person, to $23 850 for a family of four (figures refer to 2014, period of the study)

The narrative of financially successful women getting abortions to prioritize careers does not reflect the majority of abortions in the United States.

 

[RogerRoger]

You're a Republican.


Accept reality. That is precisely right.

I actually hold that opinion, but didn't want to assume that it was widely accepted. It's important to break down what exactly these discussions rest on.

 

[Vicomte13]

I know your point about safety nets doesn't necessarily reflect the people who actually go through with the procedure, and more refers to the relatively safety of having the option, but I wanted to clarify who is actually going through with the procedure.

A Guttmacher report from 2014 found that of those who went through with an abortion:

• 75% were classified as low income
• 49% were living below the federal poverty line, which ranged from almost $12 000 for a single person, to $23 850 for a family of four (figures refer to 2014, period of the study)

The narrative of financially successful women getting abortions to prioritize careers does not reflect the majority of abortions in the United States.

...which does back my OTHER narrative: that to outlaw abortion Christians had better be ready to raise taxes over 50%, because that's what it's going to cost to provide for all of these new poor babies and all of the handicapped people needing serious care that, right now, are aborted.

Also, in about 16 years the crime rate will start to screw back upwards inexorably (unless we solve the social problems, which will take far more in taxes), because right now the offspring of the poor are aborted in large numbers, and the poor commit most of the crimes. When we started aborting the criminal unborn, the crime rates came down.

Essentially, to prohibit abortion requires an embrace of communitarianism, because the alternative is a poverty and crime apocalypse...as we see in those countries that do not have broad social supports and that ban abortion.

I'm willing to embrace the necessary communitarianism to stop slaughtering babies, and that's why I am not a Republican. They're not.

 

[Vicomte13]

I actually hold that opinion, but didn't want to assume that it was widely accepted. It's important to break down what exactly these discussions rest on.

Oh, it's not widely accepted. The Republicans have been successfully throwing out abortion as boob bait for Bubbas for a long time.

 

[Episaw]

You're a Republican.

Am I? And here's me thinking that a Republican was an American.

 

[Episaw]

...which does back my OTHER narrative: that to outlaw abortion Christians had better be ready to raise taxes over 50%, because that's what it's going to cost to provide for all of these new poor babies and all of the handicapped people needing serious care that, right now, are aborted.

Also, in about 16 years the crime rate will start to screw back upwards inexorably (unless we solve the social problems, which will take far more in taxes), because right now the offspring of the poor are aborted in large numbers, and the poor commit most of the crimes. When we started aborting the criminal unborn, the crime rates came down.

Essentially, to prohibit abortion requires an embrace of communitarianism, because the alternative is a poverty and crime apocalypse...as we see in those countries that do not have broad social supports and that ban abortion.

I'm willing to embrace the necessary communitarianism to stop slaughtering babies, and that's why I am not a Republican. They're not.

I have got a better idea. Why don't we slaughter all the retired? After all, they don't contribute to the work force and they cost us in taxes.