Mickey

Defenses will probably guess that we will roll him out to the right given who we will have at LT. Being predictable is not good.

No, what he is saying is that people can't get together and vote to spend some of their community chest on anything that wasn't authorized by John Adams or James Madison. Thus, if you want to build a road or a dam or a bridge or a levee or a hospital, you have to amend the Constitution of the United States first to allow you to raise the funds. Make more sense?

Senator Schiavo, a panderer you say? Heavens to murgatroid. I am shocked I tell you, shocked.

Can we all agree to call him "flip-flop" Frist from now on? I think his shameful display of pandering in the Schiavo mania that gripped the party not so long ago pretty much clinched it: The man is Presidential timber.

Doesn't Roe, by leaving it up to individuals essentially, throw it out of the hands of faceless bueaucracies and into our hands for us to do the right thing or be justly shunned for not doing the right thing? Saying it should be legal and saying it is right are two different things. I have no problem with people arguing that it is a terrible, terrible choice from the top of the tallest soap box they can find. Let people decide for themselves and bear the consequences of the decisions they make. I think Roe does that and I think post-Roe, that won't be the case. At the same time though, I still don't get anyone believing in their heart that all abortion is baby killing and who isn't very actively involved in trying to put an end to it. I don't think voting for pro-choice candidates once a year qualifies as being "very active". Then again, I guess you can be against terrorism without necessarily manning the trenches.

If you were walking down the street and you were armed (not really a hypothetical is it? ) and you came upon some guy who had a kid by the throat and was about to kill the child, wouldn't you shoot the creep without worrying whether you were going to jail or not? If I did it and you were on the jury, would you convict me or would you let me off based on the "defense of another" defense I described? I don't believe that abortion is baby killing so I can only inquire of those who truly believe that, what are you doing home? I suspect that for many, the "baby killing" phrase is propaganda, hurled about for political effect as a real attention getter. Basically, its overheated rhetoric that is thrown casually around whenever the issue is debated. To be fair, maybe on some level or in some cases they truly believe it is child murder but even so, recognize that it just isn't the same thing as a psycho strangling a baby but that it is something less. I am testing my suspicions by asking those who use that kind of rhetorical bomb. I do know one thing, discussing this issue with some sanity may ultimately require that both sides leave that kind of roadside bomb behind. It is just possible that those who favor some degeree of legal abortion do so because of a genuine belief that there is no real human life developing and that there is an important liberty interest involved. It is also just possible that those who would see Roe overturned simply believe that there is a human life developing that is worthy of protection even as against what might otherwise be a legitimate liberty interest. Coat hangar waving and shouting "baby killer!", I suggest, is what makes this issue so impossible to deal with rationally.

I thought that was your view but then you dropped in that "baby slaughtering" comment so I thought maybe I was wrong on that and your position was a little stronger than simply not liking abortion. I don't like it either. Just seems to me that from a constitutional standpoint and a practical one, having it legal with a number of restrictions is about the least worst choice among many lousy ones. At the same time, I don't claim to have cornered the market on wisdom on this issue enough to just dismiss any opposing view as that of a republican apparatchik or a "dummycrat". It is like trying to understand that there are football fans who root for teams other than the Bills. They have a right to I guess but lord knows I'll never understand them.

Are they lunatics though? If we assume that abortion is the murder of a baby as you believe so completely and without apparent exception, fully as if a two day old infant were clubbed to death, why would it be lunacy to use force against the murderers? Are those who would do so lunatics? Self defense and defense of another are legitimate defenses to murder charges in every state. It is as venerable a precedent in criminal law as any known. Force can be used in self defense and in defendse of another. Deadly force can be used in self defense and defense of another if you or the person you are defending is being threatened by deadly force. If you agree that abortion is the slaughter of babies and if you believe that self defense and defense of another are legitimate acts, would it not be inconsistent for one to then conclude that killing abortionists or handing out wanted posters with doctors pictures on them are the acts of lunatics? In the face of what is, by your definition, a holocaust, is it really acceptable to fight back simply by voting for republicans once a year? You seem to me to be the kind of person who wouldn't hesitate to jump in the deep end to save a drowning man or body slam a purse snatcher as he tried to run by you. I don't really know you so I can only guess but it seems to me that if you really believe your own rhetoric on this, "baby slaughtering" and all, you would want to do more.

Which happens to be the single most important position on the entire line. I believe that is why Kelly sees the line as one big fat question mark. I agree with him. There are reasons for optimism for this line, sure, but not really at LT.

If you guys truly believe that it is baby killing, the wanton slaughter of innocents, etc, are you guys out there protesting at clinics, handing out wanted posters of doctors or something like that? I may not agree with those who do but I have to respect their undeniable passion. If you truly believe that this is an infant holocaust, can sitting on the sidelines be justified? I don't mean to call into question the sincerity of anyone's opposition to abortion, I just want to know if the passion behind that opposition goes beyond overheated rhetoric. As for the concern about the Supreme Court deciding this issue, that is their job, passing on the constitutionality of legislation. To every power there is a check. You may take the position that the constitution was not implicated in those statutes that prohibited abortion circa 1972 but certainly, upon that issue reasonable minds may differ.

"About the only question mark — and it's a big one — is the offensive line. They're going to need to make sure they can find a way to protect J.P. or he could become gun-shy in a hurry." Jimbo knows what he is talking about. The line, the line, the line, the line. Its the line. If that unit plays well, this could be a great year. If they don't, well...

I am letting history be my guide, history like Thomas and Scalia. Sure, sometimes Presidents are wrong about what their nominee will do once on the bench but very often they are right. Roberts has been closely tied to Scalia and Rhenquist (he clerked for Rhenquist) so I think he will be just as hot to overturn Roe as they both have been. Besides, the point really isn't whether he will or won't at this stage. The question is whether he has been "litmus tested" by the administration, whether the belief that he in fact will vote to overturn Roe played a major role in his being selected. I have no doubts on that score. There is simply no way this President, given his views on the subject and the depth of his support among the religious right, selected a guy he has any doubts about on abortion. No way. Could he be wrong? Sure, it could happen. Even if he is though, the fact remains that both sides are "litmus testing" nominees. It is just plain silly for either side to point the finger at the other and complain about litmus tests. No one can predict the future but all in all, I'd bank on Roberts overturning Roe in a heart beat and I say that without any concern as to whether it should or should not be overturned. He will vote to overturn it and Bush's belief that he will and the belief that he will on the part of the far right is an important factor in his selection.

"baby slaughtering"? Do you seriously believe that is what it is?

Lets see, he has been on the bench for only 2 years so there aren't many opinions to look at period. Is there some reason why I am limited to looking only at his handful of judicial opinions to conclude that the belief that he would overturn Roe played heavily in his selection by a clearly anti-Roe President? Why limit the inquiry to just his judicial opinions?

O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia were all confirmed by a democratically controlled Senate. All were expected at the time of their confirmation to vote to overturn Roe. Even so, democrats confirmed them even though they would not have neeed to filibuster the nomination to do so. Because they were expected to overturn Roe, the right reacted with anger and accusations of betrayal when three of them, O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy voted the way they did in the Casey case. The most egregious example of a "litmus test" nomination was Clarence Thomas, one of the most unqualified and unimpressive Supreme Court nominations in the modern era. He was nominated by a Republican president. He was a judge for only 1 year, 1 lousy year on the CofA for the DC Circuit before he was elevated to the Supreme Court. Compare his experience to the others on the bench: Breyer: 14 years as a judge, 13 years as a professor Ginsburg: 13 years as a judge, 17 years as a professor Kennedy: 13 years as a judge, 23 as a professor Souter: 12 years as a judge on 3 different courts O'Connor: 6 years as a judge on two different courts Stevens: 5 years as a judge, 8 years as a professor Scalia: 4 years as a judge, 14 years as a professor Rehnquist: No judicial experience, clerked for a Supreme and was asst. US AG Thomas: 1 year as a judge Funny, the most experienced judges on the Court are the ones who were in the majority in either the Casey case or the Nebraska "partial birth abortion" case. The least experienced are the most reliable votes against Roe. Scalia was a professor and a well respected one from 1967 to 1981 so he was more qualified than just his 4 years as a judge would indicate. Rhenquist and Thomas had no great academic, judicial or other qualifications that would have led you to say, had you examined their pre-appointment resumes, "this guy is a shoe in for the highest court in the land". Rhenquist was appointed before Roe was even decided so he wasn't a litmus test guy. His qualifications were mostly political but he did clerk for a Supreme which is a big deal and he was known as one of the top lawyers of the day back then. It isn't like he was shockingly unqualified. Thomas was a litmus test all the way, it sure wasn't all that valuable experience he picked up as a staff counsel for Monsanto. If democrats used a litmus test, they would have defeated Thomas, Scalia, Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor. They didn't. The most obvious litmus test was a republican appointment. Against that you have Bork who lost on an up and down vote by the way, not on a filibuster. Like I said, both use the litmus test, republicans arguably more so.

one clause fits all...literally

I have made that point a few times with those who have suggested that the question, in a post-Roe world, would be thrown back to the states. Congress could pass such a law right now but given the 5-4 split upholding Roe, any such legislation would have been struck down adding yet another precedent supporting Roe thereby making it even more difficult to overturn. That is why, in my opinion, the right has not pushed for such legislation since the decision in Casey. Once Roe is overturned or even sooner, once they feel they have a majority on the court for overturning Roe, I think they will pass such a law very quickly. The only stumbling block would be a Senate filibuster and the majority will simply brush that aside the second it gets in their way. Projecting out on the kind of post-Roe, post nationwide ban, reproductive landscape that would then ensue can be frightening and fascinating at the same time. The pro-life crowd would probably not just pull up stakes and go home but instead would just pick another target. Italy just had a law passed that forces women who use fertility clinics to have all fertilized eggs implanted in their womb because otherwise, those eggs in storage would be "murdered". They will likely focus on moring-after like pills. As a thriving illegal abortion market takes root, I am sure they will start calling for a "war against drugs" type of approach focusing legal resources on stopping illegal abortions. That doesn't even begin to speculate on what lunacy the far left will embrace in protest. Abortion buses sponsored by NOW streaming across the Peace Bridge to Canada laden with pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant? I can easily imagine strongly pro-choice states not willing to accept and certainly not to enforce federal legislation banning all abortions. Maybe we will see national guard units from Texas marched into Manhattan surrounding clinics to enforce federal law where state authorities refuse to do so. Maybe toss a few doctors in prison, who knows? The possibilities are pretty endless and although I would never have thought that any party would swing that far from the center, even on abortion, I have long since given up pretending there are such limits. After witnessing the public flogging of Arlen Specter and the whole stem cell carnival, I am not counting on discretion ruling the day. As for litmus tests on the court, that has been the case for the far left and the far right. Arguably, more so for the right. The only difference is what constitutes a passing score in the eyes of each of party. What gets everyone's dander up is when a Judge, expected during confirmation hearings to vote one way, actually votes another. These non-litmus test decisions led the right to go ballistic. Accordingly, they loved Souter and Kennedy when they were being confirmed but suddenly they became lousy judges when they voted as they saw fit. Its almost as if the right felt that these Justices had promised to rule one way and broke that promise when they didn't. Talk about a litmus test. To the left, they were simply pleasant surprises and supportive of the notion that their postion was so correct on the law that even right wing judges had to agree. For example, in Casey, I believe all 5 justices who voted to uphold Roe were appointed by Republicans. In particular, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, when they were confirmed, it was thought that they each would vote to overturn Roe if given the opportunity. Even so, they were confirmed by the Senate which was controlled by the Democrats. They would not even have had to use a filibuster to keep them off the bench. No litmus test was applied by the Democrats as to those justices. I am quite certain that Roberts is being selected not just because he is a smart guy with a good record. He was selected because he is believed to be a sure bet to overturn Roe. There will be democrats who will oppose him for just this reason. If it is bad to choose Judges based on how you think they will rule then both sides are guilty of this. The court in Casey was made up of the following Justices: The 5 that voted to uphold Roe: O'Connor (Reagan) Kennedy (Reagan) Souter (Bush) Blackmun (Nixon) Stevens (Ford) The four against: White (Kennedy) Scalia (Reagan) Thomas (Bush) Rehnquist (Nixon) Since then, Blackmun and White were replaced by Bryer and Ginsburg, both Clinton appointees. If a case had come up similar to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, placing Roe squarely on the chopping block, the vote would have likely been 6-3 instead of just 5-4. The main abortion case to come up since Casey, in my opinion, is the one on partial birth abortion. The Casey majority lost Kennedy and Blackmun but added Ginsburg and Breyer. The dissent in Casey lost White but added Kennedy. The end result was another 5-4 decision that supported Roe. I think it is fair to say that O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy were the last Justices on the Court whose votes, at least on abortion, couldn't always be predicted. Say what you want about them, they did act with independence. Maybe Roberts will join them but I don't think so.

...and they say there are no ultimate truths.

See what you did, are you happy now?

I don't get it, if I pointed out that pro-lifers have killed doctors, would you think I was calling you, as a pro-lifer, a murderer? Pro-lifers have killed doctors so the statement would be prefectly accurate. Clearly though it would not be intended to mean that every pro-lifer on the planet has shot a doctor and to interpret it that way would be, in my opinon, looking to be offended. I see why you want to skedaddle.

I have asked you several times now about your statement regarding Roe, to wit: "I think it should be overturned, and the issue left to the states" You haven't responded except to complain about nonexistent insults in an exchange you were not even a part of. The absolute and legitimate role of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality of enacted legislation and state actions. Constitutional law can be a very rich and complex study, one that can hardly be dumbed down to a slogan like "legislating from the bench". If you took the time to read that portion of the Casey decision I posted or followed the link I provided to read the whole opinon, maybe you would see that what the court did in that case was to engage in exhaustive analysis and thorough study to try and arrive at the proper decision under the law. The right would boil all that down to "legislating from the bench" for no reason other than that they don't agree with the ultimate decision. Their evaluation of the law is outcome determinative. Whatever gets them to Roe being over turned is fine with them. If you can honestly read the entire opinions in Casey and Griswold and so many other cases and ignore the intellectual struggle, insightful analysis and forceful logic of the justices, even if you disagree with the outcome, and label what they have done as nothing more than "legislating from the bench" than there is no point really in discussing this with you. This is just one conservative talking point that is so drilled in that there is no way to excise it. I'll tell you one thing, among constitutional scholars of any merit, right or left, there is not one who, when the TV cameras are off and the fundraiser over, thinks that phrase is anything more than a jingle. Instead of arguing catch phrases, read the opinion in Casey and tell me what you disagree with and why. Instead of whining about insults, why not explain and defend the position you have taken with regard to Roe, ie, "...it should be overturned, and the issue left to the states" as I have asked?

Behind every rags to riches story is two "stupid" people having a child who turns out to be not so stupid and making it big time. As it turns out, "stupidity" is not inherited which is why lots of smart people have not so smart kids and vice versa. Educational quality and opportunity along with committed family support is a far better predictor for academic and career success than anything else. In short, too many "stupid people reproducing" is not necessarily the problem.

Thanks, I was thinking of Brown. Even so, a 7-2 decision is a stronger precedent than a 5-4 decision, especially one that has been interwoven into a number of other decisions of similar weight as has Roe. An excellent discussion of precedent and what is necessary to overturn a major ruling in the specific context of Roe is contained in the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, here is a clip of that discussion: The obligation to follow precedent begins with necessity, and a contrary necessity marks its outer limit. With Cardozo, we recognize that no judicial system could do society's work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it. See B. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921). Indeed, the very concept of the rule of law underlying our own Constitution requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition, indispensable. See Powell, Stare Decisis and Judicial Restraint, 1991 Journal of Supreme Court History 13, 16. At the other extreme, a different necessity would make itself felt if a prior judicial ruling should come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed. Even when the decision to overrule a prior case is not, as in the rare, latter instance, virtually foreordained, it is common wisdom that the rule of stare decisis is not an "inexorable command," and certainly it is not such in every constitutional case, see Burnet v. Coronado Oil Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 405-411 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). See also Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. ____, ____ (1991) (slip op., at ___) (Souter, J., joined by Kennedy, J., concurring); Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 212 (1984). Rather, when this Court reexamines a prior holding, its judgment is customarily informed by a series of prudential and pragmatic considerations designed to test the consistency of overruling a prior decision with the ideal of the rule of law, and to gauge the respective costs of reaffirming and overruling a prior case. Thus, for example, we may ask whether the rule has proved to be intolerable simply in defying practical workability, Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U.S. 111, 116 (1965); whether the rule is subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the consequences of overruling and add inequity to the cost of repudiation, e. g., United States v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 265 U.S. 472, 486 (1924); whether related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine, see Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 173-174 (1989); or whether facts have so changed or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification, e. g., Burnet, supra, at 412 (Brandeis, J., dissenting). So in this case we may inquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable; whether the rule's limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it or significant damage to the stability of the society governed by the rule in question; whether the law's growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal anachronism discounted by society; and whether Roe's premises of fact have so far changed in the ensuing two decades as to render its central holding somehow irrelevant or unjustifiable in dealing with the issue it addressed. Although Roe has engendered opposition, it has in no sense proven "unworkable," see Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 546 (1985), representing as it does a simple limitation beyond which a state law is unenforceable. While Roe has, of course, required judicial assessment of state laws affecting the exercise of the choice guaranteed against government infringement, and although the need for such review will remain as a consequence of today's decision, the required determinations fall within judicial competence. The inquiry into reliance counts the cost of a rule's repudiation as it would fall on those who have relied reasonably on the rule's continued application. Since the classic case for weighing reliance heavily in favor of following the earlier rule occurs in the commercial context, see Payne v. Tennessee, supra, at ____ (slip op., at ___), where advance planning of great precision is most obviously a necessity, it is no cause for surprise that some would find no reliance worthy of consideration in support of Roe. While neither respondents nor their amici in so many words deny that the abortion right invites some reliance prior to its actual exercise, one can readily imagine anargument stressing the dissimilarity of this case to one involving property or contract. Abortion is customarily chosen as an unplanned response to the consequence of unplanned activity or to the failure of conventional birth control, and except on the assumption that no intercourse would have occurred but for Roe's holding, such behavior may appear to justify no reliance claim. Even if reliance could be claimed on that unrealistic assumption, the argument might run, any reliance interest would be de minimis. This argument would be premised on the hypothesis that reproductive planning could take virtually immediate account of any sudden restoration of state authority to ban abortions. To eliminate the issue of reliance that easily, however, one would need to limit cognizable reliance to specific instances of sexual activity. But to do this would be simply to refuse to face the fact that for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. See, e.g., R. Petchesky, Abortion and Woman's Choice 109, 133, n. 7 (rev. ed. 1990). The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain cost of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. No evolution of legal principle has left Roe's doctrinal footings weaker than they were in 1973. No development of constitutional law since the case was decided has implicitly or explicitly left Roe behind as a mere survivor of obsolete constitutional thinking. It will be recognized, of course, that Roe stands at an intersection of two lines of decisions, but in whichever doctrinal category one reads the case, the result for present purposes will be the same. The Roe Court itself placed its holding in the succession of cases most prominently exemplified by Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), see Roe, 410 U. S., at 152-153. When it is so seen, Roe is clearly in no jeopardy, since subsequent constitutional developments have neither disturbed, nor do they threaten to diminish, the scope of recognized protection accorded to the liberty relating to intimate relationships, the family, and decisions about whether or not to beget or bear a child. See, e.g., Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 678 (1977). Roe, however, may be seen not only as an exemplar of Griswold liberty but as a rule (whether or not mistaken) of personal autonomy and bodily integrity, with doctrinal affinity to cases recognizing limits on governmental power to mandate medical treatment or to bar its rejection. If so, our cases since Roe accord with Roe's view that a State's interest in the protection of life falls short of justifyingany plenary override of individual liberty claims. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261,278 (1990); Cf., e.g., Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. ____, ____ (1992) (slip. op., at 7); Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990); see also, e.g., Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 24-30 (1905). Finally, one could classify Roe as sui generis. If the case is so viewed, then there clearly has been no erosion of its central determination. The original holding resting on the concurrence of seven Members of the Court in 1973 was expressly affirmed by a majority of six in 1983, see Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (1983) (Akron I), and by a majority of five in 1986 , see Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians andGynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986), expressing adherence to the constitutional ruling despite legislative efforts in some States to test its limits. More recently, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), although two of the present authors questioned the trimester framework in a way consistent with our judgment today, see id., at 518 (Rehnquist C. J., joined by White, and Kennedy, JJ.); id., at 529 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), a majority of the Court either decided to reaffirm or declined to address the constitutional validity of the central holding of Roe. See Webster, 492 U. S., at 521 (Rehnquist, C. J., joined by White and Kennedy, JJ.); id., at 525-526 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 537, 553 (Blackmun, J., joined by Brennan and Marshall, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id., at 561-563 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Nor will courts building upon Roe be likely to hand down erroneous decisions as a consequence. Even on the assumption that the central holding of Roe was in error, that error would go only to the strength of the state interest in fetal protection, not to the recognition afforded by the Constitution to the woman's liberty. The latter aspect of the decision fits comfortably within the framework of the Court's prior decisions including Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), Griswold, supra, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the holdings of which are "not a series of isolated points," but mark a "rational continuum." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S., at 543 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). As we described in Carey v. Population Services International, supra, the liberty which encompasses those decisions "includes `the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions.' While the outer limits of this aspect of [protected liberty] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that amongthe decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions `relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.' " Id., at 684-685 (citations omitted). For the full opinion, see Casey

Good point but that wouldn't fire up voters on either side nor inspire them to send buku dollars into the 700 Club or to re-elect Senator Whosit. It is a huge money-maker for the Republican party, less so for the Democrats. Yeah, the Dems. get some voters and cash for it but no where near the fountain of support that rains down on the Republicans for this issue. Abortion is a critical issue to many, many people. Whether it should be or should not be is an interesting academic question to debate at the next social but the plaint fact is that this issue is the issue for enough voters to keep it atop the hit parade for a long time to come. If you project where the laws might go on this over the next 5 years, it clearly is just going to go on commanding lots and lots of political attention. It could be made illegal nationally which will lead to protests up the ying yang in California and New York and other places. I can see doctors performing them and then going to jail. I can see the occasional report of a young woman dying after having a black market abortion. I can see illegal sales of RU-486 or whatever that "moring after" pill is called going through the roof. Maybe they throw it to the states and you have the Balkanization of reproductive law with it legal in one state and illegal in another. Imagine a Doc. going from Virginia where it is illegal to Maryland where it is legal two days each week to perform abortions at a clinic in Baltimore. I could see that Doc. getting arrested in Virginia when he crosses border. The possible craziness that could erupt is mind boggling. Perhaps in paradise this issue would not be a hot button one garnering lots of attention but here on reality street, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Well first of all, I think Exiled was referring in general to those whom he believes are using states rights as a false front. He used the word "they" and was replying to someone elses post. I don't see why you think he is calling you a liar. Second, I was exchanging a little humor with Exiled about what would happen to the practice of abortion in a post Roe world such as black markets and the mob. Do you think abortions will stop if made illegal? No? I thought not. Is it unreasonable to assume that someone is going to make a load of cash from illegal abortions? If you are this determined to be offended and self righteous, find someone elses posts to over react to. You are clearly spoiling for a fight tender man.