I was just curious because people say that even with the two new judges Roe v. Wade would still stand. So i wondered in the original decision which jusitces voted in favor of it and which justices voted against it.
120273
These are the names of the Justices:\n\nChief Justice: Warren Burger \n\nAssociate Justices:\n\nWilliam O. Douglas, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, William Rehnquist \n\nThis was their stance:\n\nMajority by: Blackmun \nJoined by: Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell \n\nConcurrence by: Burger \nConcurrence by: Douglas \nConcurrence by: Stewart \n\nDissent by: White \nJoined by: Rehnquist \nDissent by: Rehnquist \n\nSource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
380473
Don't know about the partial.  In SD, the most restrictive ban on abortion was soundly defeated, and in CA the parental notification law was also soundly defeated.\n\nFundies were again given a nice dose of reality.  Abortion rights and and woman's right to chose will never go away.
390680
Killing babies refers to abortion, which is still legal under the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Both Democrat and Republican women have unwanted pregnancies and abortions.\n\nMost flag burnings have been staged; there is not a lot of it going on, so it's a false issue. Democrat Hillary Clinton is a strong supporter of anti flag burning legislation. I don't think Democrats really care one way or another about this non issue.
125673
The Constitution does not mention abortion. It does, however, guarantee you the right to privacy.
592779
I didn't vote for him the first two times, only ones that did was the brain dead and the actual dead. That's why he had to be appointed by the supreme court.
81416
Before Roe V. Wade was decided on January 22, 1973, each state had it's own laws on abortion.  In states where it was illegal, the answer to your question is January 22, 1973.  In states where it was already legal, the answer will vary from state to state.
371570
Actually, it's a protection of marriage, but the Religious Right doesn't understand this, or civil rights, for that matter. I don't think they have ever heard the phrase "equal protection under the law". They have their own warped agenda. Marriage is a right for every citizen. The New Jersey Supreme Court had the right idea by applying the Equal Protection clause in the US Constitution. Hooray for them!!!
512286
As a former registered voter, I'll say that in my case (unique as it is) I quit voting because I'm sick to death of all judicial activism. Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, Lawrence v. Texas -- the judges are in control of things that they aren't supposed to be in control of. And when they don't do their job right, it takes away from me the reason for voting.\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmMw9x3DOqdoPlmDb0OnlXXsy6IX?qid=20060806183105AAoLAcf\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkVZYcDl.zTriszMuuSI2pnsy6IX?qid=20060808153658AAvrjbs\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqEXC_l9wLiax7Sl6WpCp5rsy6IX?qid=20060908175423AAliALu\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As.u7eoSfWGemI1RJIEd4Prsy6IX?qid=20061010152455AAzyTMA\n.
50251
I asked how the other religions felt about "abortion" here on Y!-answers.  They all came back with it was murder <Christian, Jewidism, Islam, Muslim, Buddahist, and Taoist> ((Guess I still need to ask the Aethists, Scientologists, Wica's, and African Tribal religions ...sorry)).\n\nNow with that many religions against abortion, how did it ever get legal?  Are there that many "Aetheists" out there?
498256
Because liberals never want the people to have their way, that is why we have roe vs. wade and other bad cases.  They want judges to decide for us.  Good luck with that in Taxachusetts.
389293
Nothing is inevitable. You never know which side a Justice will come down on. I would like to believe they weigh the arguments and then place them in a context of what is allowed by the Constitution. Activist judges ruling by judicial fiat from the bench are not good for anyone, no matter which side of the political spectrum they fall on.
475873
Leaves the decision to the states, like the 10th amendment required in the first place.\n\nNow let's get it right with abortion.  Then we can move on.
58397
In the short run, I'd say no.  Bush or successor has to replace one more supporter to overturn.  On an up-or-down vote I think these 5 would vote to uphold:\n\nKennedy, Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens.\n\nNone of them are young, so in the medium to long term, Roe v. Wade is in deep peril.
427312
You need to provide more info first.  As both a paralegal and adopted child, I would offer my opinion, however, you neglected to inform us what amendment is offered in the bill, how it will diversely effect the citizens and why you are against it.  Without these important facts, any answer given would be disingenuous.
457622
For the record I am against all abortion.  But from what I've read thus far on the subject, it seems that the opponents of the abortion are looking at the baby and arguing it is cruel to them.  Supporters are arguing it is safest for the woman (since they may not consider the fetus a baby until it is born).\n\nThey do crush the skull and/or cut it open and remove the brain into a vacuum.  With the subsequent smaller head it is much easier to remove the baby/fetus (whichever you'd like) from the uterus.  The only other way that I know of is to cut up the baby part by part inside and remove each part one by one.  The baby is killed first so its pain is limited in that second one.\n\nIt does seem to me that since both styles hurt the child about the same, that in essence the opponents aren't trying to end one as being too cruel to the kid; rather they are trying to limit abortions and make each abortion type illegal one by one rather than the stop all abortions at once (which has repeatedly failed at the Supreme Court level).  I guess its up to each of us to decide what we believe is right and then to fight for that.  I've chosen no abortions, but I fully understand when others want to make exceptions or make it fully legal; we each go for what we think is right.
203846
I am pro-life, always, but I can't force or make people do what I think is right.  Their choice.  I would say take every case on a personal level.
32386
Republicans.  I'm laughing at the answer before me (first answer, there might be more by the time I post).  The democrats have constantly tried to make the constitution something it is not.  For example, "seperation of church and state."  Democrats actually have us all believing that this is in the constitution!  It is not!  The only thing the constitution forbids is a state church, where the President of the United States would be like the pope of the church.  In fact, if you read the all the commentary that the founding fathers left for us, Christianity was always meant to be a big part of the government.  Republicans are not trying to take rights away.  Homosexual acts used to be a crime.  Some day there will be a march for the rights of child molesters under the same arguments, "we can't help it, we were born this way...  love is never wrong, etc."  If republicans try and oppose that I suppose we will be "taking their rights away," too?  Somethings needed to change.  Slavery definately needed to be abolished.  The civil rights movements of the 60's needed to happen.  These were people that were not given equality based solely on skin color.  I would extend that to homosexuals and those that find children attractive to this point: you may not be able to control what or who you find attractive, but you CAN control your actions.  We also don't throw people in jail because they THINK about killing someone.  Homosexuality is not the same as race.  There is ACTION that takes place before it becomes wrong.  Laws can legislate action.  \n\nAs far as abortion rights, read the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade and read the ammendment that originally allowed slavery.  The wording is so similiar it will make you sick.  If there is any question about whether or not a fetus is a human life or not, shouldn't we say no to killing it?  \n\nIt is time to stop "interpreting" the constitution to please every sick-o with a "cause," and preserve the nation that our forefathers built by preserving the constitution.  That means actually reading the constitution, reading the letters, speaches and earliest judicial decisions, and not being afraid to do what they did, and look to the Bible as a rule of law.