How would Overturning Roe affect Abortion Rights?

Overturning RvW would throw the issues back to the states. Currently, 15 states have criminal bans that would outlaw abortion throughout pregnancy: AL, AR, AZ, CO, DE, LA, MA, MI, MS, NM, OK, UT, VT, WI, WV. 27 states have bans that would outlaw abortion as early as 12 weeks, with no health exception: AK, AL, AR, AZ, FL, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, LA, MI, MO, MS, ND, NE, NJ, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, WI, WV.

So, to answer your question: In 32 states (the 27 plus CO, DE, MA, NM, and VT) abortion would be illegal.

So, to answer your question: In 32 states (the 27 plus CO, DE, MA, NM, and VT) abortion would be illegal.

No, by your own count, it would only be in 15, not 32.  But then that would leave 35 where abortion was legal.  So how would that make abortion in the United States illegal?  Seems to me that everyone would have access to it, just not very conveniently for some.

And is that such a bad thing? Remember the 10th Amendment? "Any rights or powers that are not explicitly given to the Federal government are reserved for the individual states" - paraphrased a little.

If the electorate of the 15 states have determined that they do not want abortions to be legally available in their state. Another 17 states have determined that they would make it illegal after the 1st trimester. That still leaves us with 18 states plus DC, PR, USVI, Guam, and a couple other places that HAVEN'T already decided or have decided that it should be legal.

Sounds like it's working to me. Why should 7 people, making a decision on a case where the plaintiff EXPLICITLY DID NOT WANT TO PURSUE, make the decision for the rest of us?

Roe v. Wade walks all over the 10th Amendment. As has been pointed out in other places, R v W CREATES a right that was present before. It overrules the states right to define their own policies based on local beliefs and understandings.

Oh, iffen ya can't tell ... I'm leaning very much towards the States rights as opposed to the Federal Gestapo ideal ...

No, by your own count, it would only be in 15, not 32. But then that would leave 35 where abortion was legal. So how would that make abortion in the United States illegal? Seems to me that everyone would have access to it, just not very conveniently for some.

Abortion, as it stands today, would be eliminated in 32 states--the 27 that have bans as early as 12 weeks, and the 15 that have criminal bans (with the majority overlapping).

The thing is, there are also a handful of states that have toyed with bans, but as the bans are currently unenforacable, and a violation of a supreme court ruling, they haven't bothered. So the number will rise.

I'm not asking for convenience, Dr. Guy--but it's either legal or not. And if it is, then your ability to afford one shouldn't be based on where you happen to be living. The fact that you live in NM should determine whether or not you receive certain medical producures (and that is what this is, in my view). Let's not make this a haves/haves not issue. It's either available to all, or not.

And is that such a bad thing? Remember the 10th Amendment? "Any rights or powers that are not explicitly given to the Federal government are reserved for the individual states" - paraphrased a little.

I didn't make a value judgement in my first comment--I answered the question asked--he wanted to know how things would change--well, the change would be remarkable.

But yes, I do think it is a bad thing. Overturning RvW would be the first step on a path of eroding reproductive rights.

As has been pointed out in other places, R v W CREATES a right that was present before.

NOT present before. And you are right, it should be over turned because it is unconstitutional.

Abortion, as it stands today, would be eliminated in 32 states--the 27 that have bans as early as 12 weeks, and the 15 that have criminal bans (with the majority overlapping).

No, it would only over turn it in the 15.  The 12 allow it for the first tri-mester.  By my english dictionary, that means it would be legal.  Just not under any circumstances as it is now.

Overturning RvW would be the first step on a path of eroding reproductive rights.

How? How would overturning Roe V. Wade erode reproductive rights?

Overturning Roe V. Wade will return the determination of WHO decides back to the individual states. It will not (in and of itself) make abortion legal or illegal. It will allow each individual state (as designated by the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution) to make that decision. That's all. If the individual states decide one way or the other, that's their perogrative. However, I still don't understand how throwing that decision making capability back to the seperate states would cause an erosion of reproductive rights.

Let's not make this a haves/haves not issue. It's either available to all, or not.

It is not a have/have not issue as anyone could still get one.  Some would be a little bit more inconvenienced than others.  That is all.

And if you want to create a level playing field, legislate it.  Dont adjudicate it.  One is the right and democratic way to go.  The other is just a different form of totalitarianism.

NOT present before. And you are right, it should be over turned because it is unconstitutional.

Gah. I was thinking NOT present ... that's what I get for thinking faster than my fingers can type.

See doc with the left it always comes down to abortion, just like I said.

I'm leaning very much towards the States rights as opposed to the Federal Gestapo ideal

So do Liberals, when it suits their purpose.

Overturning RvW would be the first step on a path of eroding reproductive rights.

How?  It would not ban births.  I have not seen anywhere were it would ban sex between consenting adults, or the abstinance thereof.  Nor would it make adults obtain a permit to have a baby.

Overturning Roe V. Wade will return the determination of WHO decides back to the individual states

Here is another example shades.  Maryland does not like smoking.  So they ban it even in your house (in some cases).  What right do the people of Virginia have to negate that law just because it causes some Virginians (Farmers) hardships?  Same arguement, different medium.

See doc with the left it always comes down to abortion, just like I said.

It should not.  Over turning Row V Wade would not outlaw abortion.  Some states may, but then they would do so by the will of a majority of their citizens.  i.e. Giving rights back to the people, taking nothing away.

Gah. I was thinking NOT present

I know.  I figured you were not doing a 180 in mid response.

I know. I figured you were not doing a 180 in mid response.

I have been know to do that (especially when talking to my wife). Not in this case, however.

What is it about the women in our lives that confuse us? My wife does it all the time and my daughter must be taking lessons from her mom 'cause she's getting good at it, too.

If your argument held water, we could then COMPELL every doctor to offer abortion, or even take it so far as to demand that every grocery store sell alcohol and Penthouse magazines. After all, they're legal, right?

Which would usurp Virginia law, not to mention several other states' laws.

I have been know to do that (especially when talking to my wife).

They have a term for that. It is called "Ensuring Domestic Tranquility".  And I do it as well.

how is recognizing a person's right to choose medical procedures and guaranteeing that right totalitarianism?

which totalitarian state is known for that?

Many of the State abortion Laws date back nearly one hundred years and have not been touched since the R vs. W. Most State legislators just left the laws on the book in order to avoid the hot button issue. If RvW is overturned, how many State Laws would be revised or removed?

Remember, people today are much more liberal in their thinking, then when most of these laws were made. IMO, after each States reevaluation period, there will be less restrictive abortion laws then before.

That will really produce a fire storm in the Republican party on most local levels, because it will pit the Pro-life and the Pro-choice candidates against each other for money and power within the party. Something that will make the Democrats jump for joy. Then after that civil war is over, and if the Pro-life (IMO mostly Religious) wing beats out the Pro-choice (IMO mostly libertarian) wing, the Republicans may just be a shell of what they are now.

But that is My Two Cents (i.e. opinion)

As much fun as this is--I'm really tired of this argument. I never say anything new (my own fault), but neither does anyone else. We aren't going to convince each other of much...and sometimes I feel like I am intentionally misread (for example, Dr. Guy, did you see the part where I said, abortion "as it stands today" -- yea, making it illegal after the first trimester is a different law...so, in fact it does change the law).

I've also had the reproductive rights argument time and time again, and don't feel like getting it to it--especially when you are being completely disingenuine with your response. No, I don't think there are laws outlawing birth--let's not be patently ridiculous. But I do feel that once you start legislating over women's reproductive health is it not a far jump to think that legilation regarding birth control, maternity leave...and the whatnot are that far away.

how is recognizing a person's right to choose medical procedures and guaranteeing that right totalitarianism?

I cant answer you since you took everything out of context.  Now if you want to show me where I stated that, I can respond to it.

That will really produce a fire storm in the Republican party on most local levels, because it will pit the Pro-life and the Pro-choice candidates against each other for money and power within the party.

I agree with that assessment.  Right now, the Republicans have the high road, and the democrats are forced to argue for death and murder.  If Roe is over turned, the democrats will have the high road and the republicans will be forced to fight among themselves on what now is a non issue.