« Rumsfeld v. FAIR | Main | Lott Endorses McCain »

March 08, 2006

What if Roe v. Wade was Overturned?

Josh Goodman analyzed information produced by NARAL and found that if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow and found that 23 states would be likely to ban most abortions, 20 states would keep abortion legal and 7 states would be battlegrounds.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at March 8, 2006 08:21 PM

Comments

If Roe were overturned tomorrow would it take as long as the end of the month for the federal ban of abortion to pass at least the House and possibly the Senate since the few Republican "moderates" there have shown a consistent willingness to cave into the Bush administration on almost every issue?

Posted by: Jim S at March 8, 2006 11:34 PM | permalink

I have just posted a long post about my interview with an Indiana Right to Life group.

I certainly hope Roe v Wade is overturned. I think each of the fifty states should make their own laws about abortion.

Mike Sylvester

Posted by: Mike Sylvester at March 8, 2006 11:48 PM | permalink

I certainly hope Roe v Wade is overturned. I think each of the fifty states should make their own laws about abortion.

Be careful what you hope for, Mike. I'm fairly certain that the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Right to Life Committee, and people like Nellie Gray, Rep John Shadegg, and Sens Tom Coburn and Sam Brownback will see to it that when what your wish comes true, what you think should happen, never will.

Posted by: JohnS at March 9, 2006 09:45 AM | permalink

JohnS,

It would depend how the Court overturned Roe. I could see them declaring it an issue for each individual state to legislate, thereby heading off the federal abortion ban.

That said, I think there's enough clever individuals working at the federal level to find a way around even an explicit states-rights decision. I could see them making a ban on abortion a condition for federal funds of some type.

Posted by: Michael LoPrete at March 9, 2006 03:25 PM | permalink

What interests me is that the Republicans have been running the country for quite a while now but have not proposed an amendment rolling back Roe. Why do you think that the Republicans want to cut off a source of campaign contributions?

Posted by: Sam Hasler at March 9, 2006 07:45 PM | permalink

An abortion amendment has not been proposed because it would not have the support of a 2/3 majority in both houses (or in either house, as far as I know; also, if it is true that 20 states would leave abortion legal, if given a choice, then the amendment would not have the support it needs from the states). It would also energize its opponents more than its supporters, because it is easier to inspire people through fear of something implausible than through hope for it.

Posted by: Karl at March 13, 2006 12:13 PM | permalink

Post a comment




Remember Me?





(you may use HTML tags for style)

 
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----



Rankings and Aggregators
Technocrati
Blogdom of God
Who Links Here

Site Meter