Every four years it seems anti-choice presidential candidates tell voters that overturning Roe v. Wade simply means returning the question of legal abortion to the states.
We can assume that some candidates will repeat this mantra if asked about abortion in the primary season -- including Saturday's debate in Ames, Iowa.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), who has yet to formalize his candidacy, already injected this concept into the debate.
After making claims about "states' rights," Perry then reversed course and pledged to support a federal constitutional ban on abortion, which would outlaw abortion and ban many common forms of contraception.
Salon.com pointed out that how politicians like Perry invite charges of hypocrisy when they speak so glowingly of so-called "states' rights" while at the same time they also vow to use the powers of the federal government to further erode women's freedom and privacy.
As in 2008, when then-candidate Sen. John McCain (R - Ariz.) used the "return-to-the-states" argument, it's important for voters to consider two key facts:
First, in order for the issue of choice to go to the states, Roe would have to be overturned. (This is not a tiny detail considering it's been the law of the land and guaranteed women's access to safe, legal abortion for nearly 40 years.)
Second, the reversal of Roe would clear the way for an anti-choice Congress (currently, there are 245 anti-choice members of the House) to ban abortion and thus override any state laws guaranteeing a woman's right to choose. The current situation in Congress only reinforces the importance of the presidency to protecting choice. We recently published an updated publication, The Powers of the President, that outlines the breadth of influence the president has over reproductive-health policy.
Focusing specifically on the states issue, here is a question for anyone (a candidate or lawmaker) who makes this claim: In which states should the right to privacy exist and in which states should politicians have control over personal, private decisions?
If Roe were overturned today, and Congress lacked the votes to enact a nationwide ban, women's access to legal abortion could be in jeopardy in nearly half of the states. Based on analysis of current state laws and the hostile legislative landscape, here is how it could happen:
States with near-total abortion bans:
Fifteen states have currently unconstitutional and unenforceable near-total bans on abortion already on the books, either from before Roe (13 states), or in the case of 2 states (LA and UT), from the early 1990s when they seized on a close vote in the Supreme Court to try to overturn Roe. Bans in the following states may become enforceable if Roe falls: AL, AZ, AR, CO, DE, LA, MA, MI, MS, NM, OK, UT, VT, WV, and WI.
States with "trigger" bans:
Four states have laws that would impose near-total criminal bans on abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (sometimes known as "trigger" bans): LA, MS, ND, and SD.
Two of these states, ND and SD, are not in the first group of 15. Thus, the number of states under threat goes from 15 to 17.
States with fully anti-choice governors and legislatures:
Fifteen states have anti-choice legislatures and governors and would likely outlaw abortion if Roe falls: AL, AZ, GA, ID, LA, MI, MS, NE, ND, OH, OK, SD, TX, UT, and WI.
Five of these states, GA, ID, NE, OH, and TX, are not in the two previous categories.
So, in total, there are 22 states where choice is at risk if Roe is overturned. That's 44 percent of the states.
These numbers underscore the need for Americans to fully examine each candidate's position on legal abortion. We recently analyzed and summarized the positions of 12 announced and potential Republican challengers, including Perry's, and found that these candidates, with rare exceptions, endorsed extreme anti-choice policies that undermine women's access to reproductive-health care, including contraception.
For voters who value freedom and privacy, it's important to note the consequences women would face if any of these candidates moved into the White House.
Follow Nancy Keenan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NARAL
Michael Brenner: Rick Perry: Home on the Range
Peter Montgomery: Perry, Prayer, Politics and the Presidency
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Do you think if healthcare was available to all Americans that it might decrease abortions?
Do you think that ensuring women receive equal pay as men might lower the abortion rate?
Do you think that making education a priority and making college affordable to all Americans might have a positive impact in decreasing the abortion rate?
Do you think investing in after-school programs and childcare services might have a positive impact in reducing the number of abortions?
We could go on and on. But the point is, if people are truly serious about saving the lives of the unborn rather than playing political football with women's health, then there are viable solutions available that will in fact help dramatically reduce the abortion rate as we know it. Contrast and compare the ideas and proposals being offered by Democrats and those being offered by Republicans. Then ask yourself, which party truly is pro-life?
How's that Department of UnEducation working out for you? Their own data show their own failure.
The original Supremes abortion decision was as flawed as the Dred Scott and Kelo vs. New London decisions.
The history of the Supremes is not loaded with examples of them getting it right.
Q: What would happen?
A: Some states would approve abortions, some wouldn't, some would put conditions on them. As it should be.
There cannot possibly be any more personal and private decisions than who one wants to marry, when one wants to marry, and whether to be or not to be a parent. Neither the Federal OR the State or any other government entity has a right to interfere in those decisions. In particular, it's unconstitutional on its face for the government to require women who are not even members of a faith to breed because religious fanatics insist it's the appropriate punishment for having sex.
It's ironic so many people who insist federal government cannot educate, cannot tax and spend, cannot restrict weapons and cannot interfere with religion are eager to have their state government jump in instead and do an equally bad job in all those areas, and in addition, encourage state and lcoal governments to snoop into people's sex lives.
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" Thomas Jefferson
Apparently not.
This is America for pete's sake.
More of this kind of truth needs to be out there~laura Carroll, htp://laviechildfree.com
The USA is about to enter a very sickening and shameful period.
Must be a slow news day for some. How bout that recall, or debt drama, or the media now ignoring the Moody's AAA rating? Not dramatic enough? Oh, almost forgot the jobs problem. Nope, no drama there either, right? Oh, what's going on in merry ole England? Not too much, right?
Yup, supposition and conjecture is much more dramatic - apparently. Burning and looting? Never mind. Nothing to see there. Move along.
It's almost like some twisted brand of voyeurism.
Hey, why do the Supremes have a chaplain and start their proceedings with a prayer, have the 10 Commandments etched in stone in their castle, yet not want The Great Unwashed to do similar?
Just curious.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/01/256823/pregnant-women-criminal-charges/
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol341/81-112.pdf
As Mile End said, be prepared to be horrified.
The right really wants human rights extended to ALL humans: unborn, born, in a coma, or those who are mentally unable to make decisions for themselves. They want these humans to have rights. They want to speak for the unborn.
The left wants to suspend human rights when an individual's rights supersedes another's rights.
What's left is a debate of euthanasia. What should we do with children conceived by rape or incest; children whose continued term will kill either themselves or the mother?
If we prohibit abortion then is a mother forced to bear the child from rape? Will she forced to die along with her unborn child?
We need to separate acts of euthanasia from what we've come to call 'abortion'. If we can successfully do this, then the abortion debate becomes simpler:
Do we suspend human rights for an individual when that person cannot speak on their own behalf? Does a woman's right exceed human rights? Does a homeowner's rights exceed human rights? Does a man's rights exceed a woman's rights? Do we classify people who cannot speak for themselves as humans? Do we classify people who are not ambulatory as humans? Who is a human? Is it anyone with a beating heart? Without a uterus? Without a machine? These are the real questions. Answer those, then we can successfully end this discussion.
Let the medical procedure of abortion be legal. Then, as you stated, let's debate ethics, and i say let's do it at the state level.
If your state says unborn humans are not humans and do not deserve human rights, then let the people say that.
If your state says that people who are mentally retarded and can't make decisions for themselves are not humans and should be terminated, then let the people of your state say that.
Let us debate the ethics at the state level and you will see these issues become resolved very quickly.
Does a woman have the inherent right to determine how her own body is used, to make decisions about her own physical and emotional health? Nobody even questions that in any other context.
To enforce an abortion prohibition - thereby declaring the presence of a fetus supersedes a woman's civil rights - you would literally have to be willing to put a woman in prison for the duration of an unwanted pregnancy. The idea is insane.
Every woman must be able to decide if she can, or wants to, carry a pregnancy to term. Though I cannot, personally, imagine choosing an abortion in any other circumstances, I would have one ASAP if I became pregnant as the result of a rape. The very thought of carrying it for 9 months would only serve to extend the rape experience. If imprisoned for refusing to carry it, what happens to my other children?
Nobody has the right to force me or any woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy, and the rationale you would use is the ULTIMATE violation of my civil rights, i.e. because ''it's god's will''. YOUR god, not mine, and you do not have the right to force your religious values on me or any other woman.
It's a civil rights
The problem with trying to end the abortion discussion by reaching an ethical consensus is that those who hold a minority belief in disagreement with that consensus have a right to hold their own ethical position and act on it. Certainly the ethical consensus of men about "what the women should do" isn't going to be particular persuasive to women. Historically, it has been easy for men to decide that somebody else ought to die for their principles.