They said they are against abortion and promised to outlaw abortion, so why didn't they do it?
2007-11-03 23:37:24 · 14 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
because they don't give two toots about abortion. It's just a red flag issue they pretend to support to get stupid people to vote for them.
Personally, I'll invite the GOP to work with the DNC to adopt a national policy to avoid unwanted pregnency, thereby making abortion unnecessary.
now we have a win-win.
2007-11-04 00:07:09 · answer #1 · answered by Fancy That 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Constitutionally speaking, the major arguement is whether the federal government has any say-so on abortion. The Tenth Amendment clearly gives to the states any power not given to the federal government. Therefore, divorce and gambling, for example, have been left to each state to decide what they will do. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional because it steals a power from the states. If you repeal Roe v. Wade, it will still be a state issue whether to make it legal or illegal (such as gambling say). As others have said, the supreme court, not congress or the president, will decide what abortion's fate will be. When it is decided on a federal level it will be sent back to where it should have always stayed, the state level. Before 1973, many states had abortion laws on the books (around 35 I believe). The issue became controversial when the feds moved in.
2007-11-03 23:56:02 · answer #2 · answered by william k 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not that simple. Abortion is legal nationwide, because of the 1973 Supreme Court Ruling, Roe vs. Wade.
In order to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court will have to be stacked with right-leaning judges (like Roberts and Alito, whom Bush appointed to replace Rehnquist and the more moderate justice, O'Connor).
Then a case challenging Roe vs. Wade (like South Dakota's recent blanket ban against abortion) will have to be brought to the Supreme Court.
Only with a majority vote among the 9 justices can Roe vs. Wade be overturned.
This is a matter that can only be decided in the courts, since their role is to interpret the Constitution and determine if laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not. The ruling in 1973 was based on an interpretation that anti-abortion laws violated a constitutional right to privacy (which is through an interpretation of the 14th amendment that not all legal experts agree upon).
The only way to reverse a court decision is with another court decision.
Update:
Ahh, yes, as Westhill mentioned, there is the option of creating a constitutional amendment, rendering Roe vs. Wade irrelevant, but considering that the Marriage Protection Amendment (an issue that is even less contentious than abortion - given that a lot of people in both parties are opposed to gay marriage) couldn't get out of early deliberations in the Senate even during those years of Republican "capital" ('01-'05), an anti-abortion amendment has virtually no chance of being passed in both houses and then ratified by 3/4 of the states.
2007-11-03 23:47:17 · answer #3 · answered by rachelesse 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Once the Supreme Court has determined something as law, it has to overturn it. Until recently, the Supreme Court was overwhelmingly Liberal. It hasn't faced a challenge case on abortion...yet.
Another factor is that a lot of control is at the state level...not the national. And that is really where it belongs. It should be a states' rights issue...not a national law. The national government should never have gotten involved in the first place.
2007-11-04 01:28:21 · answer #4 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A constitutional amendment would have done the trick and the administration could have pushed the amendment through Congress at any time from 2001 through 2005 when it had 'political capital'.
State approval would have been trickier, but considering how powerful the Republican machine is, there was a pretty good likelihood of success. If the Republicans did NOT want to keep abortion as a wedge issue, they would have earnestly tried this method, but of course, they did not.
2007-11-03 23:49:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Although pro life is a strong issue the war has tipped the scale, along with the 2008 upcoming election causing in my opinion a grid lock on what republicans are bringing to the table of concerns, plated are the premature Deaths of sons and daughters (IE. Soldiers) in a war that is causing fatherless families and aborted futures. Yet, a choice was made !!!!
2007-11-04 14:36:59 · answer #6 · answered by Tennessee Mom 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that deep down inside that Republicans saw an outright ban on abortion as political suicide. Anyway it is up to the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of a national ban on abortion.
2007-11-04 11:37:49 · answer #7 · answered by Michael M 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't understand why anyone would be against abortion in the first place.
Truly whats the big deal, someone that is not your spouse, girlfriend, or your daughter is also not your business. Now if people that are against abortion would use that energy to fight forced prostitution then they would be fighting a moral value. Death is not the worse thing that can happen to a person you know and if abortion is murder what is forced prostitution.
2007-11-04 00:06:47 · answer #8 · answered by man of ape 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not all Republicans are anti-abortion. I think that most Republicans are against tax dollars paying for abortions though. There's a difference.
2007-11-03 23:52:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Abortion is in fact against the law. The Supreme Court decision to permit it was infact a bad decision and unconstitutional. When we get God fearing Justices in the majority they will overturn RvW. The libs already know this and they are doing
everything they can to prevent it.
I Cr 13;8a
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As0LxS10WDUdini7QwbH4n_sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071102013947AAdC1e8
2007-11-04 13:56:04 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋