• news
  • WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 6 2004 11:49 AM

30 States May Ban Abortion

Submitted by Cassiel

Edited by Michael_J_Totten

Abortion may become a crime in 30 states if the Supreme Court overturns the famous Roe v Wade decision.

The Center for Reproductive Rights said some states have old laws on the books that would be triggered by the overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. Others have language in their state constitutions or strongly anti-abortion legislatures that would act quickly if the federal protection for abortion was ended and the issue reverted to the states.

"The building blocks are already in place to recriminalize abortion," said Nancy Northup, the center's president.


The Supreme Court justices are split 5-4 in favor of abortion rights. But if George W. Bush is elected another term, he could nominate a new justice who shares his anti-abortion views.

21 states are at high risk of banning abortion: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The remaining nine (at a medium risk) are Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

14 | 15 | 16

Next

Comments
cop_n_blow

cop_n_blow

USA
July 2004

OCT 12, 2004 01:19 PM

Morgan said:

cop_n_blow said:
there is. even you stated that someone could be induced at 38 weeks. that's two weeks early in your own example. my wife went at 36 weeks. so there are instances in healthy pregnancies where a woman can decide to induce early.



Okay, I think most of us understand this, though I doubt many doctors would approve of a woman having labor induced weeks in advance just because she didn't want to wait any longer. But we know what you're saying.

I think what most of us are saying in response is: so? What does that have to do with anything? WHY does it matter if a woman could potentially include labor a couple of weeks early instead of carrying the fetus to full term?



ok, so what. let's leave it at that. that's better than reprobate putting words in my mouth.

tongue yawn. i am so tired of this thread.

neodrunk

neodrunk

Minneapolis, MN
May 2003

OCT 12, 2004 01:26 PM

What a crock of shit... would never happen! It simply cannot. Ideas like this are tossed out for two primary reasons...
1) To keep the bible beaters on the Republican side.
2) Used as scare tactics by the Democratic party to instill the fear that these rights may be lost.
Bottom line... it will NEVER happen.

tonguemiao!!

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

OCT 12, 2004 02:15 PM

neodrunk said:
What a crock of shit... would never happen! It simply cannot. Ideas like this are tossed out for two primary reasons...
1) To keep the bible beaters on the Republican side.
2) Used as scare tactics by the Democratic party to instill the fear that these rights may be lost.
Bottom line... it will NEVER happen.

tonguemiao!!



You know you guys keep saying that and yet you adduce no evidence. Its a totally faith based ostrich defense. You want to vote for these guys and you have to rationalize that they stand of a whole lot of things you don't support, so you just invent an imaginary scenario.

The fact is that the GOP has plainly stated what it intends to do and in every instance it has done everything in its power to advance its stated goal, which is the eradication of choice in this country. Give me one cogent and defensible reason that if given more power to effect their stated goals they're going to go "Whoops, just kidding!"



[Edited on Oct 12, 2004 by reprobate]

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

14 | 15 | 16

Next

featured interviews