In light of recent events, I will open an old wound...

[farley2k]

On the whole leaving the state thing....that wouldn't be that hard to stop would it?

Think about it - you can't kidnap a person take them across state lines and kill them.

So if a particular state rules a fetus is a person then traveling out of state to get an abortion would basically be kidnapping a person to kill them.

[Mr. Fed]

Tareeq, you don't quite have Cathena's touch.

To answer your question, I don't know whether Scalia and Thomas would be consistent. Might it not depend on how the nationwide law is framed?

I've been trying to remember how Scalia approaches Congress' attempts to control states through the power of the pursestrings. NPR this morning had a story about reaction to the eminent domain case, and a suggestion that some in Congress are advocating a law that would withhold federal funding from any state or locality that used ED to benefit private developers. What if Congress did the same thing for abortion -- said it would withhold all federal funding from any state that did not ban it?

[Tareeq]

What if Congress did the same thing for abortion -- said it would withhold all federal funding from any state that did not ban it?

[Eightball]

blah blah condescension blah blah

I love you, too.

Of course I know that Roe and a proposed federal abortion ban are different. I don't think it would be completely inconsistent to overrule Roe (return to state's decision), and then in the wake of passage of a federal law banning abortion, upholding that law. If he overruled Roe, would it be on federalism or ethical issues? Who knows the truth, because you could absolutely disguise the ethical issue by writing the opinion based on a federalist issue. But if it's more an ethical issue, then you could see a challenge to a subsequent federal abortion ban dismissed, despite the earlier opinion. That clear enough?

Thanks for breaking it down in such simplistic terms for me, because I sure didn't get it earlier. I REALLY appreciate it, esquire.

[The Mad Hatter]

On the whole leaving the state thing....that wouldn't be that hard to stop would it?

Think about it - you can't kidnap a person take them across state lines and kill them.

So if a particular state rules a fetus is a person then traveling out of state to get an abortion would basically be kidnapping a person to kill them.

Not to mention if people start crossing the border into "abortions are and will remain completely legal" Canada.

[Defiant]

I have had lunch with him, finding him to be the most insufferably and charmlessly proud man I probably will ever meet.

I've had lunch with Trent Steel, and he's pretty much the same way.

Hmm... Trent Steel = Scalia?

[Tareeq]

blah blah condescension blah blah

I love you, too.

Of course I know that Roe and a proposed federal abortion ban are different. I don't think it would be completely inconsistent to overrule Roe (return to state's decision), and then in the wake of passage of a federal law banning abortion, upholding that law. If he overruled Roe, would it be on federalism or ethical issues? Who knows the truth, because you could absolutely disguise the ethical issue by writing the opinion based on a federalist issue. But if it's more an ethical issue, then you could see a challenge to a subsequent federal abortion ban dismissed, despite the earlier opinion. That clear enough?

Who knows indeed? My point was and is simply that I do not believe that Scalia could vote to uphold a federal abortion prohibition without becoming a laughingstock among bench and bar.

Therefore I don't believe he will.

Thanks for breaking it down in such simplistic terms for me, because I sure didn't get it earlier. I REALLY appreciate it, esquire.

Eightball we've had enough of these go-rounds that I hope you know I am quite aware of how sharp your legal mind is. You haven't had the opportunity to start forgetting everything.

If you felt that my attempt at humor went too far, it's a shame you won't be encountering any real federal judges in your upcoming career.

[Eightball]

If you felt that my attempt at humor went too far, it's a shame you won't be encountering any real federal judges in your upcoming career.

Nah, it's okay. I'm just leaving to drive to NC to perform some unanticipated oral surgery on you later. See ya in a few!

I hope I never set foot in a courtroom as a litigation attorney. If my firm ever goes to trial, and I'm sitting at the counsel's table, my firm is in deep shit because either a bio-weapon attack or bomb just destroyed their litigation department. I just want to write my patents and work on policy in non-litigation peace.

[Hetz]

Basically it would be illegal everywhere except New York and California.

I'd add Illinois, Massachutsetts, Oregon and Washington to the list.

Wisconsin as well, with our Democrat Gov and general progressive attitude, there is no way it would be outlawed here.

[brettmcd]

Personally, I hope it is overturned and then congress has the guts to actually pass a federal ban that would be upheld by the courts. We already give the unborn legal status in most states (a person killing a pregnant woman gets 2 murder charges, child abuse charges for harming the unborn with drugs or alcohol, things like that). Its completely stupid to say the mother can kill her unborn child without charge, but someone else doing it could get the death penalty.
Going back to the states really wouldnt work, do you really think something that one state considers murder should be completely legal in the next state over?

[Fretmute]

Going back to the states really wouldnt work, do you really think something that one state considers murder should be completely legal in the next state over?

Isn't that the whole point of letting the states draft their own laws?

[Eightball]

Going back to the states really wouldnt work, do you really think something that one state considers murder should be completely legal in the next state over?

We have that distinction already. An example is some states regard the death penalty as a penalty, other states regard it as state-sponsored murder....

[Gwar21]

With O'Connor leaving and several other judges getting WAY up there, there's a distinct possibility that Bush will have the opportunity to craft a court that will reverse Roe vs. Wade.

I don't see that ever happening, but I wouldn't complain if it did.

[Kraken]

Basically it would be illegal everywhere except New York and California.

I'd add Illinois, Massachutsetts, Oregon and Washington to the list.

Wisconsin as well, with our Democrat Gov and general progressive attitude, there is no way it would be outlawed here.

Massachusetts has no need for abortions now that we've made gay marriage mandatory.

[geezer]

Personally, I hope it is overturned and then congress has the guts to actually pass a federal ban that would be upheld by the courts. We already give the unborn legal status in most states (a person killing a pregnant woman gets 2 murder charges, child abuse charges for harming the unborn with drugs or alcohol, things like that)

That's the first absurdity.

. Its completely stupid to say the mother can kill her unborn child without charge, but someone else doing it could get the death penalty.

Agreed. It's completely stupid to charge someone who kills a woman that is 10 days pregnant with 2 counts of homicide.

Going back to the states really wouldnt work, do you really think something that one state considers murder should be completely legal in the next state over?

Not once everone can agree on what defines murder. Until that point, just as you and I clearly have different ideas on what constitutes murder, so do the lawmakers in various states. Of course in Geezerville, I don't really want to restrict what the good citizens of Brettmcd City want to do. The good citizens of Brettmcd City do not, however, seem to want to give me the same right of self-determination.

I think on the whole, you're right though. Transportation is such these days that a statewide ban on something isn't too much of an obstruction.

[Grifman]

So why exactly wouldn't it be a federal issue and instead be a state one?

If a fetus is ruled or definied as a full person and the constitution talks about the right to "life, liberty, etc." then wouldn't the federal government have good grounds to overrule states who wanted to commit murder?

Because we are talking about overturning Roe vs. Wade here, and that was never about the fetus being a person. Roe vs. Wade held that the constitutional right of privacy made state laws against abortion unconstitutional. We are talking about this potentially being overturned, not a fetus being recognized as a person. That's an entirely different argument.

[Al]

I don't see that ever happening, but I wouldn't complain if it did.

Even if it led to a sharp increase in the crime rate?

[Kurth]

While I've not psychoanalyzed the man, if his intellectual legacy means anything to him, I can't believe he'd do it. I have had lunch with him, finding him to be the most insufferably and charmlessly proud man I probably will ever meet.

I sat next to him at a dinner in 1989. That was my impression as well.

He judged my moot court competition in 2000. That was my impression as well.

[Gwar21]

I don't see that ever happening, but I wouldn't complain if it did.

Even if it led to a sharp increase in the crime rate?

Even if.

[Victoria Raverna]

On the whole leaving the state thing....that wouldn't be that hard to stop would it?

Think about it - you can't kidnap a person take them across state lines and kill them.

So if a particular state rules a fetus is a person then traveling out of state to get an abortion would basically be kidnapping a person to kill them.

Not to mention if people start crossing the border into "abortions are and will remain completely legal" Canada.

Can easily be stopped by writing a law that stop pregnant women from crossing border and making pregnancy test a requirement for female American to leave the country.

[Fireball]

What I really wonder is what will happen to the landmark decision in the case America vs. Yoko Ono which established the jurisprudential fact that life begins at 40.

[Mr. Fed]

On the whole leaving the state thing....that wouldn't be that hard to stop would it?

Think about it - you can't kidnap a person take them across state lines and kill them.

So if a particular state rules a fetus is a person then traveling out of state to get an abortion would basically be kidnapping a person to kill them.

Not to mention if people start crossing the border into "abortions are and will remain completely legal" Canada.

Can easily be stopped by writing a law that stop pregnant women from crossing border and making pregnancy test a requirement for female American to leave the country.

Judas Priest!

[Ranulf]

On the whole leaving the state thing....that wouldn't be that hard to stop would it?

Think about it - you can't kidnap a person take them across state lines and kill them.

So if a particular state rules a fetus is a person then traveling out of state to get an abortion would basically be kidnapping a person to kill them.

Not to mention if people start crossing the border into "abortions are and will remain completely legal" Canada.

Can easily be stopped by writing a law that stop pregnant women from crossing border and making pregnancy test a requirement for female American to leave the country.

Judas Priest!

Sweet Zombie Jesus!

[Gebeker]

Do conservatives that want to make abortion illegal have any plans in place to deal with the spike in the crime rate that it would cause?

Absolutely!


They'll blame it on democrats.

[geezer]

While I've not psychoanalyzed the man, if his intellectual legacy means anything to him, I can't believe he'd do it. I have had lunch with him, finding him to be the most insufferably and charmlessly proud man I probably will ever meet.

I sat next to him at a dinner in 1989. That was my impression as well.

He judged my moot court competition in 2000. That was my impression as well.

I saw him on TV about 8 1/2 months ago. That was my impression as well.

[ImLawBoy]

While I've not psychoanalyzed the man, if his intellectual legacy means anything to him, I can't believe he'd do it. I have had lunch with him, finding him to be the most insufferably and charmlessly proud man I probably will ever meet.

I sat next to him at a dinner in 1989. That was my impression as well.

He judged my moot court competition in 2000. That was my impression as well.

I saw him on TV about 8 1/2 months ago. That was my impression as well.

I've read some of his opinions. That was my impression as well.

[Exodor]

While I've not psychoanalyzed the man, if his intellectual legacy means anything to him, I can't believe he'd do it. I have had lunch with him, finding him to be the most insufferably and charmlessly proud man I probably will ever meet.

I sat next to him at a dinner in 1989. That was my impression as well.

He judged my moot court competition in 2000. That was my impression as well.

I saw him on TV about 8 1/2 months ago. That was my impression as well.

I've read some of his opinions. That was my impression as well.

I once read about him on the internet. That was my impression as well.

[msduncan]

I'm assuming overturning Roe v. Wade would leave the states free to regulate abortion as they see fit.

I'm guessing it would remain legal in blue states and be outlawed in red states.

It would also destroy any hope of Republicans portraying themselves as moderate on social issues and probably mark the turning of the tide back to Democratic control of Congress and/or the Preisdency.

/end simplistic, sweeping generalizations

Appearing moderate has never helped Republicans. Ronald Reagan won a two term presidency being conservative. George W. Bush won his second term being conservative.

George H W Bush LOST his bid for a second term trying to be moderate.

But I agree with your assessment that the court would probably leave it up to the states...and thus there would be blue state abortion and red state prohibition.

[Al]

Even if.

Did you read the link? Do you know what I'm talking about here? I'm saying that re criminalizing abortion would probably cause a ten percent increase in the homicide rate and an overall crime rate increase of fifteen to twenty five percent, not to mention the associated costs of such an increase which would probably be on the order of thirty billion dollars annually.

Do social conservatives have a plan to deal with this that they have not talked about publicly? Assuming they don't, isn't that a bit irresponsible?

[Captain Caveman]

Even if.

Did you read the link? Do you know what I'm talking about here? I'm saying that re criminalizing abortion would probably cause a ten percent increase in the homicide rate and an overall crime rate increase of fifteen to twenty five percent, not to mention the associated costs of such an increase which would probably be on the order of thirty billion dollars annually.

Do social conservatives have a plan to deal with this that they have not talked about publicly? Assuming they don't, isn't that a bit irresponsible?

It seems like that study is an equal opportunity offender. The right hates it because it describes the "benefits" of legalized abortion, while the left hates it because it has the faint whiff of eugenic arguments. Still, it's a very interesting read.

[Al]

It seems like that study is an equal opportunity offender. The right hates it because it describes the "benefits" of legalized abortion, while the left hates it because it has the faint whiff of eugenic arguments. Still, it's a very interesting read.

Pretty much. Levitt has pointed out time and again that race doesn't really enter into it. People are just as likely to have an "at risk" kid if they are a single teenager who dropped out of school early and lives below the poverty line regardless of their race.

He also points out that legalized abortion isn't a panacea. There are other ways to deal with increases in crime that are on the whole much more beneficial. I just don't see social conservatives wanting to deal with the issue at all, which I find troubling.

[Biyobi]

While I've not psychoanalyzed the man, if his intellectual legacy means anything to him, I can't believe he'd do it. I have had lunch with him, finding him to be the most insufferably and charmlessly proud man I probably will ever meet.

I sat next to him at a dinner in 1989. That was my impression as well.

He judged my moot court competition in 2000. That was my impression as well.

I saw him on TV about 8 1/2 months ago. That was my impression as well.

I've read some of his opinions. That was my impression as well.

I once read about him on the internet. That was my impression as well.

I couldn't pick him out of a line up to save my life, but I did once stay at a Holiday Inn Express, so that is my impression as well.

[Eightball]

I couldn't pick him out of a line up to save my life, but I did once stay at a Holiday Inn Express, so that is my impression as well.

I can help with that!

Bio Shot of Nino:



Nino, champion of Liberty:



Nino, chilling at home.



Wow there are some crazy images of him out there.

[Rowdy]

Not to mention if people start crossing the border into "abortions are and will remain completely legal" Canada.

Yes, but with luck the momentum carry forward here and maybe we can stop slaughtering 'unwanted' babies here too. We often see trends in Canada catch on several years after they become mainstream in the US.

Did you read the link? Do you know what I'm talking about here? I'm saying that re criminalizing abortion would probably cause a ten percent increase in the homicide rate and an overall crime rate increase of fifteen to twenty five percent, not to mention the associated costs of such an increase which would probably be on the order of thirty billion dollars annually.

Do social conservatives have a plan to deal with this that they have not talked about publicly? Assuming they don't, isn't that a bit irresponsible?

Ah I see, so someone who views the dismemberment of a completely helpless, aware human being murder SHOULDN'T stand on their principles because it would cost money, or an increase in the homicide rate (I assume caused by the reclassification of now illegal abortions as homicides?) I'm pretty sure most social conservatives consider stopping babies from being brutally killed the priority, and can work on how to deal with the law breakers after the fact. I assume that before abortions were legal we had huge problems dealing with the massive numbers of child killers? Oh wait, we didn't, because we didn't live in a culture where it even occurred to a young mother that she had the option to murder her child as opposed to having it.

Any of you pro-choicers have kids? Here's a fun game - picture them inside mommy again, now imagine a doctor dismembering them with a scalpel, or crushing their heads with forceps while they scream in agony - except mommy doesn't care, or is more worried about what her life would be like with a baby. It's hard for me as a father of a 3 yr old and an 18 mo old to comprehend anyone that thinks their convenience or life is more important than the life of that child. It's also difficult for me to understand how anyone can rationalize this kind of death of a child.

Here's hoping Bush gets the biggest dam conservative judge he can find into the SCOTUS..

[Smoove_B]

Here's hoping Bush gets the biggest dam conservative judge he can find into the SCOTUS..

Be careful what you wish for.

[Captain Caveman]

Ah I see, so someone who views the dismemberment of a completely helpless, aware human being murder SHOULDN'T stand on their principles because it would cost money, or an increase in the homicide rate (I assume caused by the reclassification of now illegal abortions as homicides?)

You didn't read the article.

[Al]

Ah I see, so someone who views the dismemberment of a completely helpless, aware human being murder SHOULDN'T stand on their principles because it would cost money, or an increase in the homicide rate (I assume caused by the reclassification of now illegal abortions as homicides?)

No, read the study or perhaps try to remember the early eighties. It would, however also cause the infanticide rate to rise.

I'm pretty sure most social conservatives consider stopping babies from being brutally killed the priority, and can work on how to deal with the law breakers after the fact.

In other words, it won't be a problem for another fifteen to twenty years and by then someone else will be in office? Nice.

I assume that before abortions were legal we had huge problems dealing with the massive numbers of child killers?

Before abortion was legalized we had huge problems with killers period. The murder rate peaked at almost double what it is now in 1980.

Appeals to emotion aside, pretending that women who have abortions don't have sound reasons for having one doesn't make it so. Making abortion illegal would mean that we would have to deal with thousands more at risk kids almost immediately. That's not a problem that's best dealt with on the fly. I would expect that someone who claims to care about kids would continue to care about them after the cord is cut.

[SuperHiro]

I just erased a long ass post twice, because it wasn't very nice. And it had lots of f-words in it.

Suffice to say:

1) I don't think it's fair to lump all "pro-choice" people as "pro-baby killing", or "yay abortions" crowd. Both me and my wife are "pro-choice", and yet find abortions abhorent.

2) I do have a child, 9 mo's old.

3) Edited out. I'm not you Rowdy, I'm not you.

[Eightball]

Here's hoping Bush gets the biggest dam conservative judge he can find into the SCOTUS..

Be careful what you wish for.

I bring to you the dissent in the Hamdi decision by Thomas, one of the two most conservative justices on the court. Go ahead, seize US citizens without any proof, and hold them indefinately! F Due Process!

Or Scalia's view on mass tort litigation. Guess what? While the liberals espouse limiting mass tort litigation punitive damages, guess who thinks there should BE no limit? That's right, Scalia! Scalia = friend to tort lawyers everywhere!!

Now that's conservative thought we ALL can agree on!

[Exodor]

Oh wait, we didn't, because we didn't live in a culture where it even occurred to a young mother that she had the option to murder her child as opposed to having it.

Do you think women had abortions in the U.S. prior to 1973?