Roe V Wade Is Doomed...

[Tassman]

You know, I wouldn't be at all surprised if one or more of the conservative judges failed to overturn Roe Vs. Wade. It's been around so long now that it may be more difficult to overturn than people might think.

[rogue06]

Some pretty terrible predictions there and poor arguments to back it.

The NYT today has an opposite prediction, which seems to be a whole lot more backed by actual polling data, and actual voting results:

The Millennial Socialists Are Coming:

From 7000 to 37,000 is a sharp increase but in a population of 325 million that's still essentially from nothing to nothing.

[Teallaura]

I don't think so, because I already agreed that nearly everyone thinks there should be restrictions, and there are restrictions. My specific point is that the majority of americans agree that abortion should be legal and that women should have the right to choose.

You're dropping your caveats to make is sound like the majority support abortion on demand and the polls, including the Pew you cited yourself, clearly show the OPPOSITE to be true - the clear majority of Americans DO NOT support abortion on demand. 'The right to choose' has never been used to refer to abortion under limited circumstance - it is ALWAYS used to refer to abortion on demand.

[Teallaura]

You know, I wouldn't be at all surprised if one or more of the conservative judges failed to overturn Roe Vs. Wade. It's been around so long now that it may be more difficult to overturn than people might think.

Plessy was a lot older when it was overturned, if memory serves. Bad law has no age limit.

[KingsGambit]

3) The pendulum nature of political will - historically, the cycles have been cleaner but just because modern politics are muddier than usual doesn't mean that this process is gone. We've seen it in mini-strikes over the last forty years - and the probability is that it will eventually make a complete shift. We see this in the last twenty years of data on abortion opinions - the majority does not support abortion on demand any longer and hasn't in two decades. The Baby Boom resisted (not terribly successfully) the normal shift right seen in aging - but there's no reason to assume the successor generations will even try. They have no Woodstock or Viet Nam to rally around - but they do have decades of failed social experiments that left indelible marks on them - as they become parents, the odds are they will be rethinking the life choices their parents made.

If this were the case, you would think that there would have been a substantial change in opinion regarding no-fault divorce, but this hasn't happened.

[KingsGambit]

Looks like Susan Collins plans (in theory) to put her foot down:

I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/polit...urt/index.html

Question: Is this that even meaningful? Don't most potential nomination candidates tiptoe around the issue and avoid actually saying anything directly on Roe, even if asked?

[Teallaura]

If this were the case, you would think that there would have been a substantial change in opinion regarding no-fault divorce, but this hasn't happened.

NFD hasn't been much on the radar, either - the church hasn't been very vocal in opposing it - yet. There are some tremors on that front, but still only mild. I suspect had there been a concerted effort of opposition all these years we'd be seeing more progress.

There has to be an advocacy in order for a pendulum to move - and NFD has been an orphan issue for decades.

[JimL]

You're dropping your caveats to make is sound like the majority support abortion on demand and the polls, including the Pew you cited yourself, clearly show the OPPOSITE to be true - the clear majority of Americans DO NOT support abortion on demand. 'The right to choose' has never been used to refer to abortion under limited circumstance - it is ALWAYS used to refer to abortion on demand.

Sorry, you're simply making that up Tea. Abortion on demand in this sense is nothing more than abortion without restrictions and I never made such an argument. The opposite is true though, there is a minority who would make all abortion illegal, no choice for any reason. But, the fact is that, opposed to that minority, the majority of americans are in favor of abortion being legal.

[Teallaura]

Looks like Susan Collins plans (in theory) to put her foot down:



https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/polit...urt/index.html

Question: Is this that even meaningful? Don't most potential nomination candidates tiptoe around the issue and avoid actually saying anything directly on Roe, even if asked?

I SOOOOO want to ask her if she thinks the Warren Court erred in overturning Plessy!

Nominees tiptoe on EVERY issue - they are supposed to appear as jurists who impartially apply the law.

[KingsGambit]

NFD hasn't been much on the radar, either - the church hasn't been very vocal in opposing it - yet. There are some tremors on that front, but still only mild. I suspect had there been a concerted effort of opposition all these years we'd be seeing more progress.

There has to be an advocacy in order for a pendulum to move - and NFD has been an orphan issue for decades.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though - wasn't the gist of your argument that people would see harmful effects of homosexuality and change their opinions over time based on personal observations, organically?

[Teallaura]

Sorry, you're simply making that up Tea. Abortion on demand in this sense is nothing more than abortion without restrictions and I never made such an argument. The opposite is true though, there is a minority who would make all abortion illegal, no choice for any reason. But, the fact is that, opposed to that minority, the majority of americans are in favor of abortion being legal.

No, I'm not making it up - I've lived through the whole stupid debate - I remember Roe coming down. 'Choice' has never refereed to anything but unrestricted choice - hence advocates having conniptions with the PB abortion ban.

A majority favors some abortions being legal - but the proportion varies with the exact restrictions. What ISN'T true of the majority is that they do NOT favor abortion on demand - or even abortion as it is allowed today.

A woman whose life is somehow (medically, this is nonsense other than ectopic) endangered - that would be clearly supported by the majority - even most pro-life advocates agree with this. A woman who just doesn't want the child - the support for this is low (28% in Pew if I recall correctly). Your premise that Americans support 'choice' is simply not reflected in the polling - including your own citations.

[Teallaura]

Correct me if I'm wrong, though - wasn't the gist of your argument that people would see harmful effects of homosexuality and change their opinions over time based on personal observations, organically?

Not particularly (at the individual level, that is a part of the dynamic in every issue) - there is still considerable opposition to gay marriage and more importantly, to the anti-free speech PC culture. As that latter pendulum swings, it will take other issues along with it - and opposition will become more vocal beginning new debate. Also, 'bridge too far' can and will have nasty repercussions - that appears to me to be underway as the Democratic party is in the beginnings of tearing itself apart. It's tough to over estimate how centrist the US truly is - the Dems are beginning to damage their base (the Republicans have done similarly and barely survived as a party). Whether that will continue and what its final outcome would be is whole speculative at this point, but a dam with growing cracks in it always bears watching.

Sure, it could happen organically as you describe - there will necessarily be that element - but in political terms, the wedge is still very much in the GM issue where it's barely noticeable in the NFD issue. Politics really starts when you have three people in a room - that butterfly could shift the winds and someday, very well may - but that's not what I'm considering in my current suppositions.

[TheWall]

Overturn it.

[Terraceth]

Looks like Susan Collins plans (in theory) to put her foot down:



https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/polit...urt/index.html

Question: Is this that even meaningful? Don't most potential nomination candidates tiptoe around the issue and avoid actually saying anything directly on Roe, even if asked?

Well, it would rule out Bill Pryor.

[rogue06]

You're dropping your caveats to make is sound like the majority support abortion on demand and the polls, including the Pew you cited yourself, clearly show the OPPOSITE to be true - the clear majority of Americans DO NOT support abortion on demand. 'The right to choose' has never been used to refer to abortion under limited circumstance - it is ALWAYS used to refer to abortion on demand.

To be fair, that is pretty much how most of the MSM tends to report it or at the very least suggest what the polls say.