The pro-life trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.

[IndyCA]

What is their strategy, to have a pro-lifer appointed to the USSC and then it is overturned just like that?  I thought a case had to be brought to the court to be ruled on, and old cases cannot be brought back up for the same reasons.  The court originally ruled that it is an enumerated right to privacy that a woman could have a safe legal abortion, so if it were to be challenged would a lady have to say that her rights are violated by that decision?  I don't get their strategy.  If I were a pro-life statist I think a 2/3rd majority of congress would be the route to take. 

Does anyone know their strategy?

[JWI]

Overturning Roe v. Wade just means that the decision on abortion reverts to the states.  Personally I think that's where it belongs anyway.

[IndyCA]

How does it get overturned?  Just because there are more pro-lifers than pro-choicers on the court means they can overturn an older decision? This does not make sense.

[IndyCA]

How does it get overturned?  Just because there are more pro-lifers than pro-choicers on the court means they can overturn an older decision? This does not make sense.

Also I doubt the pro-lifer movement will stop there, next would be getting zygotes constitutional rights. 

[JWI]

Not sure on specifics but yes.  The original ruling was incorrect anyway, it's not specifically enumerated therefore the decision reverts to the states.  The court made up language in the Constitution to fit their ruling, had they actually read the Constitution they'd realize there isn't anything specific about abortion so therefore it goes to the states.

[JWI]

How does it get overturned?  Just because there are more pro-lifers than pro-choicers on the court means they can overturn an older decision? This does not make sense.

Also I doubt the pro-lifer movement will stop there, next would be getting zygotes constitutional rights. 

Well it depends on when you believe life begins.  If it's conception, then the constitution has this language about all people having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  In that case, abortion violates all three.

If it doesn't begin at conception, then when does it?  The constitution doesn't define that either, so it can't rule on abortion either way.

[IndyCA]

I don't think either side will ever come together in compromise.  I think the closest thing to a compromise is to end the state and federal subsidies and leave it up to the states.   

[J’raxis 270145]

To the original poster, once the pro-lifers have enough people on the Supreme Court, they just wait for a case to come up in order to allow them to revisit the issue. There is of course the distinct possibility that there’s already a planned “test case” in the works to do just that.

The Court has indeed revisited issues and reversed themselves in the past. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a good example; this case reversed the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), which had upheld State sodomy laws. Lawrence subsequently overturned these laws all over the nation.

There’s no rule that the Supreme Court can’t reverse themselves. Lower courts are bound by decisions by higher courts, but the highest court in the land doesn’t bind itself.

Not sure on specifics but yes.  The original ruling was incorrect anyway, it's not specifically enumerated therefore the decision reverts to the states.  The court made up language in the Constitution to fit their ruling, had they actually read the Constitution they'd realize there isn't anything specific about abortion so therefore it goes to the states.

They danced around and used the “penumbra” argument that the right exists based on shadows of a right to privacy in the enumerated rights. They could’ve pointed to the Ninth Amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”) to justify the right to privacy, but that would have opened such a can of worms that they didn’t want to go anywhere near it. The government has for far too long tried to interpret the Bill of Rights as if these are the only rights that people have. The Ninth, just like the Tenth, may as well not exist.

As for whether or not the entitlement to regulate abortion reverts to the States, that would be based on the Fourteenth Amendment and whether or not the right to privacy should be “incorporated” into the States. The Court has been wholly inconsistent on incorporation—they’ve incorporated parts of the First and Fourth, but refuse to do so with the Second, for example.

Of course, I’m a voluntaryist so this is all largely academic to me. I don’t really care how they come up with protecting people’s right to privacy so long as they actually do so.

[MacFall]

Overturning Roe v. Wade just means that the decision on abortion reverts to the states.  Personally I think that's where it belongs anyway.

When it comes to overturning Roe v. Wade, I'm ambivalent. It is, I believe, bad law and should not exist. But I do not believe in political solutions to any problems, even political problems. As a matter of general principle I believe in decentralization, but I don't think things will get any better with the states in control. What needs to happen is more freedom in adoption, birth control, and child welfare (as in private charity, not the government program). Not less freedom for obstetricians and gynecologists. I'm pro-life, but I don't believe that a legal prohibition, upon anything, has ever worked. And the unintended consequences of a hypothetically successful prohibition against abortion scare the crap out of me.

[Dylboz]

How does it get overturned?  Just because there are more pro-lifers than pro-choicers on the court means they can overturn an older decision? This does not make sense.

Also I doubt the pro-lifer movement will stop there, next would be getting zygotes constitutional rights.  

How, when the rest of us don't have any of those rights?

[Changed My Mind]

you have the right to not have abortions too, if you so choose.  That should be the extent of the law.

[spicynujac]

Overturning Roe v. Wade just means that the decision on abortion reverts to the states.  Personally I think that's where it belongs anyway.

Do the states also have the right to kill their citizens (cruel & unusual punishment), allow slavery, have unequal treatment of gays or people not born within the states borders, etc?  I'm a states rights guy but there are a few times I'm glad the feds came in and set the states straight.  One other area would be regulation.  Sure, I prefer a free market, but if, say, a phone company is going to be regulated, better to have one set of universal rules than 50 sets that are constantly changing and can be altered for political means.

But to get back to the original question, I agree, I don't see how in the world they could change their decision just because the court makeup changed.  If that was the case any time a justice retired you could re-appeal any case you wanted and have them hear it again.  Personally, I think the Republican party knows it can't do anything, but wants to continue to use abortion as a wedge issue for the fundies and wingnuts.  It works, too.  So many people vote on this issue when it will never even affect them, and in doing so vote in politicians who do all sorts of harmful things to their wallet and their freedoms.

[J’raxis 270145]

I'm a states rights guy but there are a few times I'm glad the feds came in and set the states straight.  One other area would be regulation.  Sure, I prefer a free market, but if, say, a phone company is going to be regulated, better to have one set of universal rules than 50 sets that are constantly changing and can be altered for political means.

So why not let the U.N. step in and regulate everything? Better to have one set of universal rules than up to 195, no?

[markuzick]

Overturning Roe v. Wade just means that the decision on abortion reverts to the states.  Personally I think that's where it belongs anyway.

Do the states also have the right to kill their citizens (cruel & unusual punishment), allow slavery,

A very good insight.

While I don't think the federal government is really a vehicle that's capable or willing to protect our rights, as long as they have this monopoly power they ought to be guided by some rational principles. One of those principles would be that just as the states should be forbidden to institutionalize slavery so they should be forbidden to institutionalise the murder of people.

As long as there is an issue of when person-hood begins and the federal government retains its monopoly on protecting basic rights, it cannot evade its responsibility to decide.

BTW: The right to privacy shouldn't be construed as the right to murder.

I may be wrong, but if understand correctly, Roe vs. Wade only requires states to allow abortion in the 1st trimester. If so, then this should stand. Unfortunately, it doesn't constrain late abortion. This needs to be addressed.