what roles do states have in making abortion laws?
396123
very little because of roe v wade has made it more of a federal matter. every state law that is passed will automatically be filed against in federal court. that is part of the reason why pro life movement wants roe over turned. so that the states and the people of the states can decide the issue.
836717
The Libertarian view on abortion is a shaky one. Some Libertarians are for abortion, some arn't. Me. I am for it but only to a certain extent. I believe that during the embryo stage, because it isn't able to live outside the body, it is still part of the woman and should be allowed if wanted. But at the later stage when it is able to live outside the body, I believe it is a seperated individual, and should not be done. But that is my views many Libertarians don't view that. But we do believe that the decision should be made at a state level and not a federal one.\n\nThe thing is if this was a Libertarian governed country, it will all depend on what the State believes. That is if the State thinks partial birth abortion is wrong, then it would be illegal for that person to get a partial birth abortion. But because Libertarians believe that the govt, should not intrude into the Abortion Clinic's business, it would be hard for that to be enforced. I hope that makes sense. I think I'm confussing myself. (Alot of deletes.) But I really don't know how this would be taken.\n\nIf you really would like to know more about Libertarianism, email me at Chsel_06@yahoo.com. I don't know everything, but I'm pretty knowledgable about many issues and principles regarding Libertarianism.
866405
Go, mom.\n\nOkay, I will not dip too deep into this because this subject is, well, one I am passionate about.\n\nMurder is murder. I don't care if the government say that you can kill a baby, that you have the right; you don't. Women have a right to THEIR bodies, yes, but after a baby is concieved, it is a seperate entity, a seperate person;human being. It is connect to, BUT no longer HER body.  Okay, What happens when you kill an adult, or, you know, let's say six of them? You will most likely get the death penalty. Why? Because you have no right, or 'decision' to make about someone else's body or life. Oh, and you want to know how law-proven guilty criminals that get death row die?...a lot more peacefully and a lot less gruesome and more human than an innocent baby that is aborted dies.\n\nI'm not an activist, but I'm sick of it. I'm sick of people supporting murder. People that cannot live up to their responsibilities of having sex, should NOT have it. I hear you on the birth control method. My mother had always told me about a roommate she used to have in college. She had several abortions, and used it as birth control. Well God (or nature, whatever you believe, or don't believe) Stepped in, and when she settled down from the college years, and got married, she was not able to have children anymore. It is wrong. If you cannot live up to your responsibilities, or not be safe and responsible, or are promiscuous it's not the baby's fault. Why should the baby have to die for your sins, your mistakes. It's believed that everyone is born with sin, but not even giving them a chance to have a life of their own is selfish. You are taking a life, and that is not right, or your place to decide.\n\nI have been through the issue with a rape. If I hadn't of had a miscarriage, I would have given the poor thing up for adoption, at least. And I was 15 at this time, a very scared, abused girl, but...killing it never once crossed my mind; I do not condone that at ALL.... and that experience messed me up very badly, to this day.  That is a terrible spot to be in, you didn't ask for it, it's not your fault, but it's not the baby's either. I mean, I won't lie, I felt terrible for what had happened (worthlessness, guilt, filth, self-pity, all the emotional baggage that came with it) but I would have felt so much more if I would have taken that life away, for nothing more than my selfishness.\n\nThere are plenty of barren, sterile couples, or just loving couples that would LOVE to have a baby, but cannot conieve that would take unwanted babies'. If it is women's right to kill their children, then why do people go to jail for it after they are outside of their womb? Hmm, it's the SAME THING. If the government says that is is their RIGHT to murder that is fu cked. What about that child's RIGHT to live, to have a life, even if it is sent to a different family. People are irresponsible and selfish. fu ck them.\n\nOh, and a smaller dip into the  the whole "they they're not babies until.. blah, blah." ,It still is a human being, no matter how small. It takes shape after a while, fingers, toes, fingernails form early on....etc. They develop faster than lawmakers gave credit... If a person other than the mother assaults a mother, and the baby dies, it is murder, if the mother decides to kill it, it's her right?\n\nThat's not right.\n\nEither be responsible, live up to your responsibilities, give it up, or just be humane.\n\n\nOOOH, \n\nAnd I can't go on anymore. I tried to sum it up for you. I can't go futher, or I will rewrite it in more detail and right a freaking book, right here and now...
112993
I hope someone with real legal expertise will give an answer to this. \n\nMy understanding from news articles is that often such a person is charged with assaulting two people -- and that just starts more arguments in court about when life begins!\n\n(edit)\nOnce you stated Michigan I was able to do some searching. It took some work. \n\nHere's one of the things I found posted on the National Right to Life website:\n\n"Michigan:  The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter under Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.555. The Supreme Court of Michigan interpreted this statute to apply to only those unborn children who are viable. Larkin v. Cahalan, 208 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1973). However, a separate Michigan law, effective Jan. 1, 1999, provides felony penalties for actions that intentionally, or in wanton or willful disregard for consequences, cause a "miscarriage or stillbirth," or cause "aggravated physical injury to an embryo or fetus."(M.C.L. 750.90a through 750.90f)"\n\nSearch for yourself in Yahoo or Google using the search terms "Michigan Fetal Protection Act" (without the quotes) and you will find more citations.
161072
If it is going to harm the Mother then probably yes, it should be allowed. But I feel there should be places in all the states that if you don't want your baby you can take him/her there without have to "kill" it.\n\nI am very against abortion.
914174
Roe vs. Wade.\n\nBrown vs. Board of Education.
1072414
It's really amazing to me how many people don't see the freight train hiding being their little conservative posterboard...\n\nDo you know why China can mandate abortions and force sterlizations? Because reproductive choice is not a guaranteed right.\n\nAs soon as Casey is overturned (for those who forget: Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992) we've lost freedom from government intereference in reproductive choice.\n\nIt's not about abortion. It's about who gets to make the decisions. Right now, it's the individual. But if the Supreme Court decides that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, and thus subject to state regulation, try to imagine what could happen.\n\nNew York 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 nationally protected. It's up to the states to decide.\n\nSouth Dakota has already outlawed abortion, even in the case of rape or incest or permanent harm to the mother. Then, they decide that they have too little population, and require every female under the age of 28 who is not celibate to have at least one child. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally 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. Let the states decide. Right?\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 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\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?
1101422
Three separate points in time, so three separate issues.\n\nFirst, sex and conception. Both parties have the right to make decisions on whether they are being involved. Non-consensual sex is called rape, whether it's male or female. \n\nThird (yes, I'm skipping second for now), there is after birth. Again, both parents are equally involved and have the same rights and obligations. Both are liable for child support, based on what they can afford.\n\nSecond, we have the period during pregnancy, after conception but before live birth. Let's split this into two separate periods.\n\nIn the last few months, called post-viability, the fetus is capable of living on its own (with medical help). So, who has rights during this time. The two lives directly involved -- the fetus and the mother. The father is not directly involved, since he's not contributing anything to helping the fetus grow. So, he has no rights to affect this part of the process.\n\nSo far, during these stages, there's no real argument about who is involved, and whose rights are at issue.\n\nThe argument comes during the first part of the pregnancy, pre-viability where there is just an embryo that cannot survive on its own. Because it cannot survive on its own, it is not an independent life. It's irrelevant for this discussion whether it's a human life at all or not, because whether it is or not, it's not an independent life. Thus, it does not have independent rights. So, the only person directly involved with independent rights is the mother.\n\nNow, many state governments say that even if the embryo does not have independent rights, the state can still assert rights on its behalf. Thus, you have arguably two parties involved -- the mother and the state (on behalf of the potential future baby). \n\nHowever, in no other legal situation anywhere does a possible future potential person or controversy merit legal protection. Maybe this situation is unique, and special rules are in order. Maybe it's not. \n\nBut either way, the sperm-donor is not directly involved during the first few months of the pregnancy (after conception), and so has no rights. Also, no legal obligations during this period.\n\nSo the only question is whether the government should be allowed to assert rights, on behalf of the future potential fetus. And personally, I don't trust the government to make those kind of decisions, so I'd rather leave it up to the mother alone during that time.
202088
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.
519035
try this:\n\nhttp://public.findlaw.com/library/state-laws.html
304728
Roe vs. Wade has generated enormous discussion on the rights of the fetus vs. the mother. What every one seems to miss is the basic reason the right to an abortion was passed. Abortion is another one of those things like drinking or prostitution that has always existed, and cannot be eliminated by legislation. Abortion rights were not passed just to give a woman the right to end a pregnancy, it was passed to stop the back alley abortionists who were killing thousands of women and fetuses every year. Overturning Roe vs. Wade will not end abortions, it will only increase the deaths of young women, wives, daughters and sisters! The facts are a matter of history, not theory!
1046713
Back before 1973 (Roe vs. Wade), states could legalize / not legalize aspects of abortion, and under what circumstances they could be performed. So for instance, here in Maryland, there were about 6,000 abortions performed in 1972, under review board process that considered aspects of each pregnancy.\n\nSince Roe v Wade, the 9 justices on the Supreme court 'discovered' it was a constitutional right guaranteed by the USA Founding Fathers, -to have an abortion. States therefore can not supersede this newly found constitutional 'right'.\n\nSo yes, abortion is legal in North Carolina, as it currently is in all 50 states.
751636
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.
880034
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.
918460
I am pro choice.  I believe that every women has the right to what happens to their own body.  If that right is taken away what man should approve an abortion or even the right to carry the pregnancy to term.  What about in a case of rape, should the rapist decide what happens to the pregnancy?  He was just the sperm donor.\n\nMost men cannot make "rational" decision when asked so give them a life or death answer...  Sorry, I wouldn't, and didn't.  \n\nI also believe that every women has the right to say what they want, if they are pro choice or even pro life.  That is the American way.
975330
death sentence of prisoners.\n\ncontinued practice of illegalized abortion by some.\n\nfamily planning is disregarded by the church.\n\nand that's all i remember.
399491
Yes.  All states have limitation on getting a late term abortions.