Brought up on Bill Maher the other night was whether the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will overturn the Roe v. Wade decision with the addition of the Bush appointees. Of course Bill had a funny little skit about it and he thinks they absolutely will.
What needs to be realized is that there are two appointments to be made. Traditionally there have been 3 judges that have, time and time again, said that the Roe decision was outright WRONG. Those were Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Kennedy, Souter and Stevens all have upheld abortions generally, with dissent on specific issues such as partial birth and parent notification. Breyer and Ginsburg of course support abortion. Keep in mind that Kennedy can flip in reference to partial birth abortions, but he has explicitly stated that abortions according to Roe and cases deciding abortion until now should stand.
So, for abortion as a fundamental right, we have 5-2 as of right now with the death of the Chief Justice and O’Connor’s resignation. Assuming Bush puts in two people that are very dead-set against Roe v. Wade then we have 5-4 and the decision stands. However, assuming a Kennedy switch, partial birth abortions would go away. Likely, parental notifications would also be allowed. However, Roe would stand.
If Bush is allowed one more appointee in addition to his two already in the next 4 years, assuming that all of his people are against Roe v. Wade, then abortion is in danger of being entirely outlawed.
However, even right wing justices have noted that Roe v. Wade is so prolific on the minds of the people that it should not be overturned. Will this notion, that abortion as a fundamental right is already assumed by much of the population, sway justices to rule for Roe? Only time will tell. I, for one, am hoping 2 is all that Bush gets …
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Why stop there? Surely we can do better. The Ancient Greeks pruned their society via the exposure of the undesired births, why not us? Since when have we accepted being second to anyone? Where do you draw the line between barbaric and ‘civilized’ behavior?
I’m going to sit this one out because there are so many more questions that are involved. Where does life begin? What is our obligation to the baby? Is there a difference between a baby and a fetus (not really)? Whose interests prevail the mother, the child, society, the family, the father? What are the moral implications of institutionalized murder? How reasonable/practical are the alternatives (adoption, foster care)?