Be Damn Clear on This: Roe v. Wade Will Not Last the Decade if Romney is Elected

[alcibiades_mystery]

It will be over, done.

Indeed, I doubt Roe v. Wade would last through 2016.

It will almost certainly be illegal to procure birth control pills in many of the United States as well if Romney and his cohort have their druthers.

These things are for sure and positive. Bader Ginsburg will retire within the next four years. That's an absolute certainty.

[WinkyDink]

1. Roe. v. Wade.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Duh! Thanks...Rove on the Mind!

Yaaargh!

[jberryhill]

3. You are 100% correct on that

Anyone who believes otherwise is kidding themselves.

Also, things which are one vote away from happening won't happen either - the prime example being "full faith and credit" applying to same sex marriage.

That's not a case you would want before the present composition of the court, and certainly not before a court with the first Romney appointee on it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some version of DADT were "reinstated" or invented

Romney is an empty vessel for the worst conservative excesses. Whatever they want, he will do, particularly before 2016.

[Initech]

4. This is why the billionaire thugs are trying to steal the election.

[DURHAM D]

6. What about condoms?

Why aren't they on the chopping block?

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Why do you think?

[DURHAM D]

8. Someone/something has to protect the men from

diseased lady parts?

[Mariana]

31. A couple of reasons

I can think of off the top of my head:

1. The big argument they use against BC is they claim it may allow conception and prevent implantation. Since there's no possible way a condom can interfere with a fertilized egg, they can't pretend that using one is the same as having an abortion.

2. Women have control over most forms of BC, and can use them (or not use them) without a man's consent and even without his knowledge. Men use condoms. They don't really want birth control done away with, they just don't want women making the decision.

[Volaris]

9. Not that I disagree.

But the backlash, the national FURY of such a move would almost certainly result in an Amendment to re-instate and re-enforce the original Roe decision, don't you think? Not that I would EVER want that to be necessary, but Holy God is there a faster way for the GOP to destroy themselves in the minds of the General Populace? Actually OVERTURN ROE? They have to know they would be OBLITERATED in the next (generational) political cycle. They would NEVER recover. They CAN'T be that stup...oh wait...OMG they really ARE that stupid, aren't they?
Christ that's a scary thought.

[Hugabear]

10. Such an amendment would have to pass thru the states

Very doubtful you could get it past the red states.

[Volaris]

11. I think overturning Roe would result in there BEING no more Red States...

at least as far as this singular issue is concerned. I think the next set of elections would be the obliteration of Red America.
Just me.

[Fumesucker]

15. I agree with you, overturning Roe would be a political meteor strike..

I'm not entirely convinced that in the long run mind you overturning RvW would be an entirely bad thing.

Women in particular in this country need a serious wake up call, my own daughter doesn't understand the seriousness of the situation.

[AndyTiedye]

38. If Roe is Overturned Your Great-Granddaughters Will be Fighting to Get it Back

[AndyTiedye]

12. They Control Enough States to Block Any Amendment

But the backlash, the national FURY of such a move would almost certainly result in an Amendment to re-instate and re-enforce the original Roe decision, don't you think?

We'd need to pass it in 38 states. They control enough states to block it for the foreseeable future.
If we lose Roe v Wade, it's gone. If we lose Griswold v. Connecticut, it's gone. If we lose Lawrence v. Texas, it's gone.

The Supreme Court really can turn the clock back that far and we have no recourse if they do. That is why it matters so much.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Exactly right

Pretending otherwise is the real whistling past the graveyard (and a literal graveyard for many).

I used to think the way some posters in this thread do: Oh, "society" has progressed too far to turn back now on women's rights. Tra la la. Oh, too many people have an out gay friend or cousin to turn back now on LGBT equality. Tra la la. Oh, they're not really serious about overturning Roe...it's just a fundraising gimmick. Tra la la. Oh, demographic shifts will prevent radical right wing responses to affirmative action, immigration, etc.

Then you look at how these things are operating in the most right wing of the states, in Kansas, in Mississippi. It's one disastrous reversal after another. They're deadly fucking serious about it. To think otherwise is childish. History doesn't work as a progress narrative - it is made in the moment through specific decisions and legislation. Romney gets a court appointee, and Roe is gone, period. He gets two, hoo-boy, look out.

And Le Taz's solution is to impeach Scalia? I mean, are these people even serious?

[jeff47]

33. Now.

They control enough states now.

But only about 20% of the population wants abortion banned. They're just very, very loud.

The remaining 80% is voting on other issues, because abortion is legal. Make abortion illegal, and suddenly that 80% is voting on abortion.

[AndyTiedye]

39. The National Numbers in Support of Abortion Rights Do Not Matter

It would be banned throughout Jesusland and those states would block any attempt to amend the Constitution.

[jeff47]

46. Read my post again.

I am agreeing that it would be banned in "Jesusland". But that would result in anti-abortion politicians losing control of "Jesusland".

Because the vast majority want abortion to be legal. Because it is currently legal, they are voting on other issues.

Make it illegal, and suddenly anti-abortion politicians are on the wrong side of demographics and lose elections.

History doesn't end with the banning of abortion.

[AndyTiedye]

48. It Might Take Another Century or Two

I have no faith that this would happen in our lifetime in those states that still have the Confederate battle flag incorporated in their state flags. How long ago was the Civil War? Some places never change.

[jeff47]

56. Take a look at the one example we have that's similar

Prohibition.

The temperance movement was a minority of the population, but they successfully drove through their constitutional amendment.

It took 100 years to end, right? And during that time there was absolutely no alcohol in the US.

Oh wait, it was basically ignored by the general populous and then repealed in about a decade. Politicians who ran on temperance platforms lost badly after prohibition was passed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Good luck with that

This is in the vein of "Bush can't go to war without full support of the European allies," and other shit underestimating the willingness of the right to do what it damn well pleases and face precious little consequences for it. There will be no legalized abortion in many states in this country within a few years o\if Romney is elected. Your scenario, as it turns out, is far more fanciful.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

42. I do...

I think the last thing the GOP wants is to actually overturn it; it's too important as a campaign device for single-issue voters.

It's one of (if not THE) most important pieces of bait with which to keep enormous swaths of the Republican base turning out to vote.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Disagree.

Roe v. Wade is the carrot-and-stick for the GOP. You actually give them the carrot, they've lost their trump card. It's called politics. It's how they keep the slathering idiocricy coming back for more. Your assertion about birth control, I believe, is hyperbole. Either move would be instant impeachment.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. I agree with your statement

regarding carrot and stick...the GOP will never outlaw Roe v. Wade, because it gives them a consistent voter stream.

I am confused however, about your impeachment comment...impeachment based upon what?

[Le Taz Hot]

20. There's already WAY more evidence

than we need to impeach at least Scalia. I think it would outrage so many millions in this country that it would be easy to make a case. Not on his abortion and homosexuality beliefs (though an argument could be made via the 14th Amendment) but through his conflict of interest in several court cases that he should have recused himself from but didn't.

This is from a post I made a couple of weeks ago:

This man is guilty of serial conflict of interest (Citizens United decision, anyone?) not to mention a 14th Century attitude towards women and, what did he call it? "homosexual sodomy?" Of all the vermin in Washington D.C., THIS is the man I truly fear the most.


Advocacy Group Says Justices May Have Conflict in Campaign Finance Cases
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/us/politics/20koch.html?_r=0



Conflict of Interest? Justices Scalia, Thomas Dine with Obamacare Opponents

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/health/health-care/conflict-interest-justices-scalia-thomas-dine-obamacare-opponents

Scalia won't recuse himself from Cheney case
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-18/justice/scalia.recusal_1_cheney-case-recuse-scalia-and-cheney?_s=PM:LAW

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Nice theory

But it will happen. the carrot-and-stick theory is a fanciful bit of wishful thinking. These people are dangerous radicals and they will go after progressive legislation full force. As for "instant impeachment," by whom? The radical right wing Republican House of Representatives? Gimme a break.

Anyone who sits back now is risking the whole bag. Period.

[Sherman A1]

29. Agreed

If they "fix" it they no longer have the issue. If they wanted this done, one wonders why it was not taken care of during the Bush years?

[AndyTiedye]

40. They Can Always Up the Ante

Once they get rid of Roe, they go after Griswold v. Connecticut.
They have already made it clear that is next.

They can also go after Lawrence v. Texas. They'd really like to be able to lock up gays again.

[quinnox]

47. the birth control assertion is heavy-duty tinfoiling

[zappaman]

50. Finally, a sane post!

Did Roe V Wade go away under 8 years of Reagan?
12 years of Bush and Bush Jr?

[davidn3600]

14. I dont think Justice Roberts has the balls

Scalia, Thomas, and Alito do, no question. But I dont think Roberts would vote against such a landmark ruling regardless of his personal beliefs unless he gets it 6-3 or better. He's not going to allow Roe to be overruled by 5-4 decision if he can help it. The guy may be conservative-thinking but he's got a brain. He knows such a politically-charged ruling would not only hurt his legacy but possibly ruin the reputation of the court. They would have to replace Ginsberg and Kennedy or Breyer with hardcore pro-lifers. And then Roberts would join them at that point making it 6-3.

Ultimately though, the whole abortion fight is nothing but a ruse to keep the religious right in line and donating lots of money for the GOP. Romney would probably appoint a righty to replace Kennedy. But to replace Ginsberg, it'd be a moderate. Romney has always been a flip-flopper on abortion anyway. The man dodges that question whenever possible.

That's my opinion of it all anyway.

[AverageJoe90]

18. Fat Tony, Uncle Clarence Thomas, and Sammy the Bull all gotta go, man.

Which is why I'm supporting Obama all the way this year. The stakes really are that high.

[bluestate10]

16. Not only Roe vs Wade, but every other piece of legislation that progressives

and moderates look to to make society work. If Romney wins, he will want to win re-election. Romney will govern in a way that will insure his base is fired up in four years, that means every piece of progressive legislation goes down a toilet.

[Missycim]

19. I have to disagree with you, if Roe v Wade survived

Reagan, Bush I, BushII, it will survive Romney (if God forbid he gets elected)


No way will the senate democrats allow a conservative to replace Ginsburg

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. Oh, it will happen

The Senate Democrats will get steamrolled into accepting whoever the fuck Romney wants. If it's in the first term, Romney will have to put in an uber-conservative to get the base lined up for 2016. If it's in the second term, he'll do whatever he damn well pleases, and you'll have already had a massive Citizens United money push for an R Senate. They will trash progressive legislation for two generations. Don't kid yourself. These people are dangerous radicals.

[ProSense]

24. Do people really look

around the states, see what Republicans are doing, and believe they aren't trying to destroy the country?

Yes, rolling back rights, regulations and social programs will destroy the country.

I mean, want to talk about "at least Bush"? Look at the damage that asshole did.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. I'm shocked by the responses in this thread...reposting Post 25 here

They will do all these things.

Pretending otherwise is the real whistling past the graveyard (and a literal graveyard for many).

I used to think the way some posters in this thread do: Oh, "society" has progressed too far to turn back now on women's rights. Tra la la. Oh, too many people have an out gay friend or cousin to turn back now on LGBT equality. Tra la la. Oh, they're not really serious about overturning Roe...it's just a fundraising gimmick. Tra la la. Oh, demographic shifts will prevent radical right wing responses to affirmative action, immigration, etc.

Then you look at how these things are operating in the most right wing of the states, in Kansas, in Mississippi. It's one disastrous reversal after another. They're deadly fucking serious about it. To think otherwise is childish. History doesn't work as a progress narrative - it is made in the moment through specific decisions and legislation. Romney gets a court appointee, and Roe is gone, period. He gets two, hoo-boy, look out.

And Le Taz's solution is to impeach Scalia? I mean, are these people even serious?

[2pooped2pop]

27. I don't think the US will last any longer than that

with another repiglican in charge. War, corporate welfare, & still more war, will finish her off.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. That's a big claim that's hard to wrap one's head around

But this specific social right will evaporate. No question

[2pooped2pop]

30. a Rmoney supporter I talked to at a local store

asked me if I thought there would be social security for my children. My reply shocked me too when out of my mouth came, "I don't think my children will live to collect it"

There is so much happening against the poor in America, that surviving is becoming impossible. I hope things change, but I don't have a lot of hope for this world. I keep brushing those thoughts aside and hope that I see changes that will change my mindset.

[porphyrian]

32. ! n/t

[Romulox]

34. I don't agree at all. The culture wars are DESIGNED to be fought forever. They can't be won--

they aren't meant to be "won". The very usefulness of the culture wars is as a distraction from the rightwing economics that both parties increasingly practice.

Therefore, Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere. It's too valuable. To BOTH sides of the so-called culture-war "debate".

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. I used to believe the same thing

I think it's easy for those of us in blue states (Michigan, yes?) to believe pure economic arguments of these kinds, where everything is a distraction but the economics.

Harder to do if you live in Kansas, where abortion is de facto prohibited because you can't get one. Then all these nice theories about the culture wars being merely a distraction fall apart right quick.

They aim to turn the country into Kansas. We should not be mistaken about that. Two Supreme Court justices and we'll see precisely that.

[Redford]

36. I don't think Roe v Wade is in danger at all.

Certainly it will not be up to Romney to decide it's fate. It would be a SCOTUS issue and the conservatives have had control of the court for several years and have never broached the subject.

The red states that require ultrasounds before abortion are the one's skirting Roe v Wade, making it an even more painful experience for women.

Remember, Romney had the cousin who died of an illegal back alley abortion. So, in the unlikely event he is CIC, he will not touch the issue. Just my humble opinion.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. Romney will appoint two conservatives who WILL overturn Roe

Talk about whistling past the graveyard!

They couldn't flip Roe with O'Conner on the court. Kennedy is too iffy. That's why they don't bring them in: they don't want addiitonal precedent. If Kennedy and Ginsburg are replaced with two Scalia clones, they will hear a Roe case immediately, and gone it will be.

[Redford]

41. No legal expert here but

if they reverse Roe V Wade they do not make abortion illegal. They simply turn it back over to the states as a states rights issue. Of course, a lot of red states might make it illegal but I doubt it. I think a lot of republicans are not crazy about abortion and don't want to pay for it with tax dollars but do not want to make it illegal. What they do is throw in roadblocks like the mandatory ultrasound.

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. I've said throughout this thread that many *states* will outlaw

I think that's clear from the fact that it is already de facto prohibited in many states. Easy to go de jure with Roe out of the way.

[Blue Idaho]

43. It won't survive his first term in office.

Along with Obama-care, Banking regulations, PBS, Title 9, Affirmative Action, and the with drawl of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. I thinkyou're quite right

It's odd how rose-colored are peoples glasses on these issues. Romney is a dangerous radical precisely because he's an empty vessel for the right wing of this country.

[Blue Idaho]

49. True!

Rmoney will sign anything a republican congress puts in front of him and he will appoint Supreme Court justices from a list provided by the tea party.

[still_one]

51. You are right

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. I'm amazed by the complacency and the theories that allow it

Oh, the culture wars are just a device for getting the base out!

No. They actually want to do it. Jesus, no wonder the right gets over on these culture war issues when even DUers think,aw shucks, they don't really MEAN IT. Yeah, try getting an abortion as a poor young woman in most parts of Kansas. Tell me then that it is all just strategy for the economics.

Insanity. You wonder why we have an "enthusiasm gap?" Even Romney's strongest opponents simply don't believe what the right wing outright tells you they will do!

[still_one]

53. The republican position is the clearest it has every been on this. Usually they dance around it,

But not this time

They have even gone as far as wanting to deny it for rape, incest, and the life of the mother

They also want to ban birth control coverage by insurance companies

There really is a war against women by the republicans

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. But people upthread will tell you it's all just a ruse!

This is one of the major problems with arguments like Thomas Frank's - the claim that the culture is just a smokescreen for the economic. It is not only nonsense, but it's nonsense that leads to the drastic erosion of the rights of women and minorities, especially the most vulnerable populations in the red states, while middle class blue state men sit around tut-tuting the economic smokescreen. Naw, dude, they really want to see abortion made illegal throughout the US. They really actually want that to happen.

[morningglory]

55. I would be very unhappy to have to get an abortion, because we have 2 wonderful boys. However,

if they get feisty with denying birth control, I will tell you something. We did not use birth control 1 time, we have 2 children. If we didn't have birth control, we would have had a baby every 10 months or no sex. The world could not handle all these horny people.