Will North Dakota's prop. to make abortion illegal overturn Roe v Wade? How?

Question

N. Dakota has a popular issue to vote on in November, making ALL abortions illegal unless the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy. They say that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade with their views deeming women unfit to make the decisions over their bodies because they are under duress at the time. And this affects the precedent how?

I disagree with them personally, and in cases of rape and incest, a woman should have the right to refuse to bear the child of her perpetrator. As if the experience its self wasn't unnerving enough, making the woman raise the bastard child may cause her to relive the traumatic experience until the day she dies. A woman deserves the right to make a choice, backed by Roe v Wade, which is backed by the Constitution of the USA.

First of all, if I were forced to carry a baby in my belly for 9 months, I would have a difficult time giving it up for adoption regardless of my economic standing no matter where the baby came from. If I feel that way, I'm sure there are others who would too. What about deformed fetuses, crack babies, and FAS fetuses. Should they be required by law to live a miserable life requiring $$$$$$$$$$$ to care for and in the end they will just die anyways... I know of an instance where a baby was born without a head. This didn't affect the mother, but could have been prevented with an abortion.

Childbirth its self is life threatening to the mother, so based on that, I think N. Dakota has no chance of overturning Roe v Wade.

Issues accepted by the Supreme Court are carefully scrutinized under the Constitution as to whether laws should be passed or not. Please don't even hint that RvW wasn't a constitutional case. That is what the Supreme Court DOES. Decides Constitutionality.

My question is in the first sentence of this. The reasoning behind the question is in the first paragraph of this. My opinion is what follows the Question and the support if you don't like my opinion, oh stinking well. Just answer the stinkin question. So, I'm looking for an answer to the question, not a bunch of wacky right wingers pushing tin to make a pro-life political statement. Just looking for honest answers.

Also,
RvW decided that abortion is legal and gives the states the decision of WHEN in the term should the woman not be allowed to abort.

Answer 1

This is an issue on the SOUTH Dakota ballot. My personal feeling is this is a medical issue rather than a personal choice issue. The doctor should take in consideration the issues rape, incest, fetal damage, the health of the woman, etc. and make a recommendation to have an abortion. The woman has the right to chose to follow or not follow this advice. Having an abortion for birth control reasons or that it is inconvenient is just plain stupid.

Adoption not abortion.

Answer 2

The only way the N. Dakota prop can "overturn" Roe is if the Supreme Court decides to hear a case challenging the law (assuming it's passed) and then if the Court decides to admit the truth about the Constitution and admit that the states are not prohibited from regulating abortion (or virtually anything else pertaining to sex and reproduction, for that matter) which would mean that Roe was wrongly decided and must be overturned.

No, the N.Dakota prop. will not overturn Roe. But the Supreme Court can and I hope it will. And I am not making any right-wing statements about abortion. I am talking objectively about the U.S. Constitution. Any Court that can say that using contraceptives is a constitutional right and abortion is a constitutional right and that sodomy is a constitutional right can just as easily say that prostitution is a constituional right, polygamy is a constitutional right, or for that matter that making your employees work for less than a government-mandated minimum wage is a constituitonal right. It is not the duty of the Court to make up constitutional rights.

"The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution. ... There should be, therefore, great resistance to expand the substantive reach of [the Due Process] Clauses, particularly if it requires redefining the category of rights deemed to be fundamental. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily takes to itself further authority to govern the country without express constitutional authority." (Justice Byron White for the Court in Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986.)

Answer 3

Good luck with this one.

I can tell you this having studied Roe v. Wade and read the entire opinion including the disenting opinions, there is nothing in the original opinion that ever gave a woman the right to decide for herself whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. That decision was always left up to the doctor. People have misinterpreted the scope of that decision for decades now and I am shocked that nobody has told them that they are wrong.

Any doctor can after examining and interviewing a patient recommend an abortion be performed for physical or mental reasons. These examinations are supposed to be performed in a hospital according to Roe v. Wade. The law you are talking about in S. Dakotah does nothing to change the law. Once again it is possible to meantally threaten the life of the mother. Think Andrea Yates and the post partem depression. Doctors can diagnose you as clinically depressed and poof magically your abortion is medically necessary for mothe's health.

What is more, before Roe v. Wade will be overturned, the law in South Dakotah will be overturned. The reason being is that the two cases that were grouped together to make up Roe v. Wade included a case in which the argument was that it was unfair to have different standards for health care from state to state so that a woman would have to tavel long distances to receive an otherwise legal treatment. The majority of the judges in this matter agreed that having varying standards for a medical situation such as this is the same as having no standars for a medical situation such as this.

Furthermore, they gave their opinion that the times in this country have drastically change to the point that society wants this law to take place.

Like I said I went through the entire opinion.

What will happen here is that the South Dakota law will be struck down as unconstitutional in that it seeks to subvert the federal government and divide the country as a whole. Furthermore, it is not a medical certainty as many doctors will attest to, so, the law is vague in its intent and its execution. I could go into the privacy issue here but I never agreed that anyone had a right to privacy separate from the society to which they subscribe. That is what I would consider a very alienable right.

At any rate that is how I see this thing playing out.

What South Dakotah could do is toughen its stance on how a doctor must evaluate and justify his/her diagnosis. They can also discuss on line abortions and abortion pills. Those seem to be in violation of Roe v. Wade, as well as free clinic abortions. The law does state that a hospital is essential to proper treatment. They could do that and be well within the law to do so. This is one of those tenth ammendment situations where the first one to do anything becommes a precedent for everyone else to follow.


Later:

I read your after thoughts and couldn't figure exactly who they were directed at. Most people are telling you it won't happen. I don't think I read a person telling you it would happen. if you are asking for a how my guess would be from watching the seneat confirmation hearrings on the past four or five judges the attack will be on the interpretation of the right to privacy which was a legal fiction deduced from the articles of confederation to explain property rights which the judges on the bench at the time of Roe v. Wade extended to justify an individuals right to medical care over the states right to govern all matters not stipulated in the Constitution. At least too of the judges now sitting including the Chief justice have come out as believing that the interepretation of the right to privacy was extended too far. That is what one of the dissenting opinions in Roe versus Wade stipulated as well. The fact is though that roe v. Wade has been used now as a precedent at least ten times on a wide variety of cases and to overturn it would be to overturn those cases as well. The judges have all but said that isn't going to happen. I wouldn't worry about it.

Answer 4

First actually no, Roe v Wade is not backed by the Constitution, read it, you will not find abortion found anywhere,
It is based on a right to privicy and was only passed by a 5 to 4 vote.

Since then the lady who wanted the abortion has came to fight agaisnst abortion now.

Roe V Wade was not law before they passed it, and in fact, the verdict was unconsitutional since it should be a state issue, since the medical treatment is not a right given to the national government

And no but it is challenge to the ruling, they will pass it, it will get declared unconstitutional based on Roe, and they will appeal it, and it will go back to the supreme court which will over turn Roe V Wade and allow each state to have its own laws on abortion.

*** they rape victim can give the child up for adoption, they are not "stuck" with it.

Answer 5

Yeah, it is going to, in tremendously lots each and every of the pink states and specific even the blue states interior the country because of the fact of each and every of the money the churchies sell off into protesting and harassing women human beings at abortion clinics and procuring sizable billboards with pictures of bloody fetuses. i contemplate whether planned Parenthood wasted all of its money on rhetoric and merchandising quite than offering quite well being centers if many of the accepted public could be as wingnut anti-selection because it is? __________ you're of course ignorant on the completed abortion subject. women human beings do no longer USE abortion as "beginning administration." extra effective than a million/2 of girls human beings who've abortions already have little ones. in case you do no longer choose women human beings to apply it as beginning administration, then why does not the non secular appropriate sell using quite beginning administration to circumvent abortion? Oh, it truly is appropriate! because of the fact they actually do no longer CARE approximately struggling with abortions, virtually moralizing approximately how human beings have too lots intercourse out of wedlock, like Palin's daughter!

Answer 6

This is a States Rights Issue. Roe was imagined by a Liberal Supreme Court.

However I do fully support Liberals killing their unborn children.

Answer 7

Yeah, It's SOUTH Dakota, not North Dakota
And there is no "k" on the end of Dakota
Welcome to the US.

Answer 8

idk