is roe v wade in trouble?
147614
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.
119870
Abortion should never be legal.  I hope the Supreme Court, with its new memebers will put an end to the partial-birth procedure.  From there Id like to see Roe itself overturned.
150351
According to Roe v. Wade he does
753467
Roe v. Wade legalized abortion.\n\nDid you know that "Jane Roe" was really named Norma McCorvey?  Some time after Roe v. Wade became law, Norma changed her mind and has for years been an ANTI-ABORTION activist.  What does that tell you about her view on the morality of abortion?  Look up her story on the Internet.
16594
The moral issues you cited, by category, should be deemed lifestyle preferences. As a non-lawyer, but as someone who has studied law, my point of view of this issue is that the state should only intervene if there is demonstrable harm present. Some say it should be merely harm, or potential harm, but that will never wash in front of our Supreme Court.
746422
Probably not. But I do know of one who was "stricken down" on his way to a radio interview about his role as an abortion provider. Had a stroke and nearly died. Some of the local Fundamentalists read far too much into it.
955611
this is something I never could understand, I think if anyone did 5 minutes research they would see it was a republican Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion for Roe VS Wade in the Supreme Court, It was also a republican Supreme Court Chief Justice at the time also, Mrs Bush has even said on national TV (The Today Show) she does not believe the Roe VS Wade should be over turned and thought here husband agreed with her. The Roe VS Wade ruling was about not letting the Government control to make the decision for whats  right for a individual, the same with gun control, when the biggest gun control bill in recent history has been the Brady bill,( a Conservative backed bill) yes, both issues had allot of liberal support, but as in both things, but there is allot of gray area, that they misinform people with
834736
Personally, I believe abortion to be wrong. I will say that to anyone. Most people don't have a problem with getting someone to at least stop and think before attaining an abortion. You always make a better decision when you think about all available options. BTW, I do help feed the hungry.
367444
Please be more specific.  \n\nRoe vrs. Wade gave a woman the right to suck a baby into a sink, ripping it from limb to limb.  \n\nThe 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote.\n\nNote to tulaksam: Less than 5% of all abortions are due to rape or the health of the mother.  All other abortions (including those conceived via incest) are abortions of convenience.  If women are so strong why can't they say "no" to sex when they do not want to carry the baby to full term?  If they get pregnant and don't want the baby, why are they not strong enough to give it up for adoption?  Roe v Wade will be overturned, because it is based on an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution. Abortion is an issue for each state to decide.  It is not a federal issue.  That is why it will be overturned.
874754
Everyone I personally know who is pro-choice disapproves of abortion. But it's not an issue of whether they think abortion is good or not.\n\nIt's an issue of whether the majority has the right to force the decision as a matter of law, and take that decision away from the individual. The whole debate is about WHO gets to make the choice.\n\nDo you know why China can mandate abortions and force sterilizations? Because reproductive choice is not a guaranteed right. Abortion is legal in the US because the Supreme Court has determined that reproductive rights are fundamental, and thus constitutionally protected. \n\nIf the Supreme Court decides that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, and that the government gets to choose regardless of what the individual wants, then the government makes all the decisions. Try to imagine what could happen, if all reproductive rights are now subject to govt control.\n\nNew York or Florida could pass a law saying that anyone making less than $30K per year cannot have children, and must abort any pregnancy, because they obviously cannot support them financially. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer protected. \n\nOr North Carolina or Texas decides that convicted felons should never have children, and starts imposing mandatory sterilization as part of criminal sentences. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. \n\nOnce the right to reproductive privacy is taken away by the court, it will be decades before it can be reestablished. Conservatives better start praying, if they get their wish, that during that time they don't become the minority under a legislation that decides to require abortions. Because, once that right to personal choice is lost, the government will always be able to decide whether you can have children or not.\n\nDo you really want to abdicate that much of your personal freedom and choice to a group of politicians? Do people really want to live in a country where state legislatures can decide who can be pregnant, and who cannot, and who must? Do people really have that much trust and faith in government that they think the legislature will always make the right choices? Because we'll be stuck with those decisions.\n\nThe concept of reproductive freedoms is not whether you agree with the individual choices being made. It's whether you think the government should have the right to take away and mandate those choices.\n\nWhy can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?
264556
The hope of the Pro-life camp in South Dakota (and elsewhere) is that it wll be tied up in court long enough for John Paul Stevens to retire (he is 85), and GWB will pick his replacement (who of course will be Pro-Life) giving the Supreme Court a majority of 5 who will overturn Roe v Wade.\n\nSo it isn't a matter of the proponents of the law hoping there will be no legal challenge, quite the contrary: they welcome that legal challenge.
1038959
Not since 'Nam.  \nUnfortunately we lack an administration willing to correct this situation...in fact I feel they are making it worse.  The government uses these divisive issues to distract us from their incompetence.\n\nSadly, it's working perfectly...Americans are more interested in gay marriage & abortion than in the obscene levels of incompetence present at our highest levels of power. \nWake up, America!\n\nStop.\nThink.\nResist.
400934
No. It sure elevates dealing with the problem that come about. Enforcement is an issue. Drinking and driving, pregnancies, etc. are hard to deal with for most families and financially burdensome.
157869
Well, in the US, family planning and procreation is protected by the right to privacy -- for example the Supreme Court's case in Griswold v. Connecticut.  The extension of Griswold ultimately was Roe v. Wade - but that's a different story all together, isn't it?
90294
NO, not right.  Your question is conveluted and misses the point completely.  I can't even respond becuase your conclusions come from no real reasoning.  The tall and skinny of it is this: our governement is not anti-life.  It is pretty clearly pro-life, and anti-abortion.  Consider the fact that there is currently a third trimester partial birth abortion ban.  This is the only kind of abortion that the Supreme Court has said would be acceptable to ban completely.  And the FEDERAL government did this.  It is not a people or a state issue.  It is no business of the government's what I do with my uterus - I would never presume to tell you or Ms. Rice what to do with yours, so stay the hell away from mine.  The fact is abortion is not a form of murder (argue it all you want, I am talking legally) , so your argument that we can't comitt murder in our bedroom blah blah really doesn't follow.  This is a privacy issue - the Supreme Court has held that our Constitution protects privacy interests in our own homes in many many different ways.  I suggest you consider the fact that this posting board ONLY exists becuase the Constition provides a free speech protection.  The government cannot come in and tell you not to express your opinion (thought the Bush White House apparently feels this doesn't apply to them...).  Get off your crazy high horse, your argument is so off and so full of misunderstings its not even funny.
1132344
A question like that reaffirms Roe-v-Wade.
849981
Roe v Wade changed meaning with time,  it started out as limiting states rights in the first trimester in the 70s because it was believed the baby was not viable before that  and although the time of 'viability' actually reduced with medical ability to sustain younger and since younger premature babies  led Justice Occonner to say  "Roe is on a collision with itself",  today is used to justify abortions anytime in the full 9 months for any reason even if the baby is viable so the Row of the 70s is not the Roe of today, in addition the was decided by default because the court  was uncertain the baby had rights  and was certain the mother did so as in the case of dred scott the preborn baby was assigned no legal protection  "when experts in the fields of medicine, science and theology cannot agree it is not the place of the court to step in" so the court decided based on disqualififying itself to determine if an preborn baby was a person