Why didn't republican overturn Roe v Wade?
927326
Lol, because the Bush administration doesn't really care what the religious nuts want. They just used them to get elected. Lol ah they were used and its funny to me.
439523
I don't know... religion has had it's share of killings... but at the same time, I think a lot of it is caused by the perversion of religion... people who twist it to serve their own needs... like the conservatives... Republican policy is much more like Roman policy in the Bible than what Jesus believed... abortion is the only real issue that Republicans seem to have in common with what Jesus may have actually believed, and one issue does not a "moral party" make. \nBut, people would rather focus on just the issue of abortion, than all of the other things the Repbulican party does like constantly cut funds to the poor and healthcare, killing many, many more in the U.S. than abortion does a year... and their excuse is that they were lazy, which of course is rediculous...\nI guess what I'm trying to say is... that religion is today, and has been since it's inception, full of "money changers in the temple." People using religion for their own purposes, and if you do belive in God, he's probably not to happy with what's going on. \nI personally think anytime you bring religion into politics, or business, it's asking for trouble, corruption and God's wrath.
731361
Can you be specific about which part he violated? Please refer to the Article and Section, and explain what he did to violate it.\n\nIf you're referring to his favoring an amendment to ban gay marriage, the process for making amendments already exists in the Constitution.  He was proposing something go through the process, unlike some of the changes to the Constitution that have come out of USSC decisions dealing with "emanations" from "penumbras", and arguments about whether the Second Amendment really says what it says.
63186
I don't think it will be overturned outright, but I think that the precident will be substancially shifted, to the point where abortion is no longer considered a Constitutional right.  Then the power will fall back to the legislative branch, where it belongs.\n\nRemember when President Bush got elected in 2000, and nominated John Ashcroft for Attorney General. NOW and other causes sent out fliers and pamphlets promising that if picked, Ashcroft was going to igonre RvW and set back women's rights by 50 years.  And that didn't happen.\nI think the selection of Alito is the same- lots of attempts to scare people with nothing really behind it.
1118854
Abortion is being used. Conservative Republicans get much of their support from abortion and gay marriage issues, so they will do anything to keep the argument up. The Republicans in power now will not propose a solution because they cannot or will not attempt to find one. They feed on the issue, the division it causes, because due to massive propaganda efforts the majority of people think abortion is evil. They are right in a way in that life should not be taken, but before we simply abolish it without thinking we should find a solution.\n\nSo what is that solution? For a single individual it is probably a combination, and as it turns out it is nearly impossible in the average teen--Intelligence, abstinence until marriage, condoms and other birth control methods during sexual activity, and wisdom enough to know the consequences for their own actions. Basically you need to be smart and responsible.\n\nBut you know what, my friend? Everything, EVERYTHING in teenage culture today says intelligence and responsibility isn't cool. The average teenage boy today wishes he was a gangster and could participate in drive-by shootings with a bunch of black people just like the rappers they idolize say you should do. The average teenage girl is obsessed with a pop music band, has a bunch of snotty friends and wishes she looked like Jessica Simpson. Traits universally shared among average teenagers is a hatred of their parents and their family values, a hatred of gay people, an obsession with doing what everyone else in their age group is doing, a disregard for love, law, and reason, and an unquenchable thirst for attention.\n\nDo the above traits sound like they make intelligent, wise and responsible people? They don't. In order to put the problem of teenage pregnancies and the abortion issue to rest, we must change the way the average young person in America thinks right now. This is a possible solution to the problem as a whole.\n\nSo now, how to change the way America thinks? Right now, no one knows the solution.
489049
Because it's their right to do so.  There are people that believe life begins at conception. Roe v. Wade was bad law anyway because the Supreme Court usurped the power of the Legislative branch and has at times usurped the states rights to restrict abortion.  There is no right to privacy in the constitution.\n\nPlus abortion violates the hippocratic oath that doctors take:\n swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:\n\nTo hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.\n\nI will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. \n\nI will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.\n\nI will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.\n\nWhatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.\n\nWhat I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.\n\nIf I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.
194786
Another moral question: Christian Republicans are pro-life, yet pro-war.
834037
There is no compelling *state* reason that anybody has listed here ... or anywhere else that I've seen.\n\nReligious reasons, by Constitution, are prohibited from being a basis for making laws.  (Thank God for that ... or we'd be no better than the Taliban.)\n\nProcreation is not a state interest.  I'm always baffled by people who raise "procreation" as a reason ... Are they saying that the government should be in the business of ensuring procreation of new Americans?  Are they saying that marriage should not be sanctioned except for purposes of procreation ... so heteros who are unable or do not wish to have children should be prohibited from marrying?  Are they saying that lesbians who *do* undergo AI to procreate, should be OK?  Are they saying that two gay men who love each other, should instead just forget all that "gay" nonsense, and each find "a nice girl" and settle down like "normal" people and have a family?  Seriously, someone please tell me what is the logic behind the government insisting on "procreation" as a requirement for marriage?\n\nOh, and I love 'Oh-Tami's answer: "Because I don't want to see two of a kind pawing each other in my kids park where they play. "  So it would be OK for a hetero couple to be "pawing each other" in front of your kids?  And are you saying that prohibitions against marrying are what is somehow preventing gays from going to the park and "pawing each other"?   You tell me ... is that logic, or just bigotry?\n\n...\n\nNo, here's the real reason we have seen these laws passed in the last three elections.  Ask yourself, are these laws being passed by state legislatures?  No.  They are public referendums and state propositions.  Why?  Because Karl Rove and the Republican leadership found that this was an effective way to get social conservative Republicans to the polls.  However, as we have found out, his tactic only works, if people don't realize that there are actually a lot of closeted gay men in the ranks of the Republicans and religious leaders who were whipping them to the polls.  Evangelicals have a low tolerance for hypocrisy.\n\nTen years from now, all these "defense of marriage" propositions that passed ... will all get repealed or declared unconstitutional by state or federal courts.
52115
Because some people want it and some people don't.  And none of the politicians who make laws want to get involved.  Too many factors involved.\n\nI'm anti abortion, but have no urge to blow anything up to make my point.
288533
No, that's a cop-out by the U.S. Supreme court. But it won't be for long. South Dakota state Senate voted, 23 to 12, to criminalize abortion in their state. It'll get challenged, I guarantee it.
83256
Your question makes no sense at all. However, let's say that you had asked if pro-choice supporters would work hard for Democrats because of the recent appointments to the Supreme Court.\n\nThe extreme pro-choice (dare I say pro-abortion) crowd is extremely angry about the Alito confirmation (moreso than the Roberts confirmation, because Alito refused to say that Roe v. Wade is settled law). They are very angry at the 17 Democrats who voted for cloture (that is to end the filibuster, which could've been sustained if it had been supported by all 42 senators who eventually voted against the confirmation). This will likely dampen their enthusiasm for Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008.\n\nAlso, it should be noted that the confirmation hearings and the attempt to filibuster Justice Alito should provide Republicans with some ammunition against Democrats.\n\nI don't think this will be a successful issue for the Democrats, however, as the most vocal opponents of the nominees are out of the mainstream of American thinking.
1157939
Loathe as I am to defend ANY Republican, I think that there is more going on here than a small group of John Birch Society-style conservatives 'going off the reservation' and ttrying to turn back the hands of time all by themselves.\nIt may be possible that there were numerous parts stuffed into the renewal of the act (in political jargon, its called pork-barrel politics) that the small group took exception to. This practive is not at all uncommon, where something unpopular is packaged within something that is extremely popular (or time-critical) so it will pass into law as well.\nWhile I am not at all sure of what was contained within the renewal, it might have been something about the wording that would allow for contentious debate in the future (such as granting the right to gay marriage to those subject to the Act in the chance that it became federal law), or contravened the authority of individual states' right (it has happened many times before, and took forever to fix). As well, it might have been a provision in the renewal calling for the closure or heavy regulation of a corporation in the Republican's state of constituency.\nSo, it might not have had anything to do with the Act itself, and the Democrats (who can play dirty pool almost as good as the Republicans) retaliating for not being yes men.\nObviously, more research should be done before assigning blame.
920976
They can't.  A desperate person will resort to desperate- and dangerous methods.  How many women died from botched abortions done by amateurs, or even by themselves?  Is it worth it to have a law that protects a clump of cells, yet endangers a fully formed, living and realized person?  If Roe v. Wade is overturned, women will have no other choice than to go back to the coat hangers, and knitting needles, and whatever else was used in those unsafe, risky techniques.  History has shown that making abortion illegal will NOT stop women from having them, will NOT control the number of unwanted pregnancies, and will NOT make this country a better place.
216784
I am a Republican.  I am getting fed up though.  I still stand behind Bush though.  You vote for someone you stick behind them til the term is over.  Then it is your call.  What I don't understand though is how can he ignore childrens futures?  I think we need you in office if you are a Republican.  A female Republican President is what this nation needs.\nRepublican til I die.
712035
For the same reason they don't keep one  for miscarriages.  They are as preventable as abortions but are never discussed.  Miscarriages can easily be prevented with prenatal care for women, but as conservatives will not allow  any funding for this, poor women do not  receive it.  More babies are lost by far from miscarriages than from abortions.  If those that say they are pro-life would put their money where their mouth is, both problems would be greatly reduced.  I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.
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.
768108
Both sides want to solve the healthcare issue. Problem is complex. The Republicans say that malpractice insurance and lawsuits must be curbed first. They say that no healthcare plan would work without limits on malpractice lawsuits. Some may call that vision or at least good planning. But the Dems want to do it regardless of the consequences to a degree. Sure, they don't mean it that way, but it reminds me of the current situation in our country. Vote us in, and we promise to have a solution, tomorrow. Vote for healthcare, and trust us, we'll fix the problems later. It's noble to try, but not prudent to try with blinders on.