Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vulcan
|
I'm not sure a website sponsored by "Priests for Life" isn't trying to promote their own agenda. I looked up the stats as they advise ([SIZE=2]1998-2002: Go to
www.statcan.ca and search for the word abortion for various statistics), and I find
this which says in 2002 there were 13.0 induced abortions / 1000 women.
For the record, I used to consider myself anti-abortion. But listening to both sides of the arguement through the years, I hear what Jiri was talking about, the zealotry of both sides is not only disgusting but divisive, unproductive, and misleading. I have come to believe it is the woman's decision - she has to bring the child to term and the physical and psychological effects are something that I'd imagine I, as a man, can never fully understand. I'm not happy that it is a form of birth control, I hate that; but it is not like having an abortion is a "Get out of jail Free" card, the woman will remember that for her whole life. But it is the woman who ultimately pays the highest price so she should be the one to make the decision.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by [/SIZE
CaptainCrunch]I might be ignorant, but if the pro-choice groups challenge this in North Dakota does it force the re-opening of Roe vs Wade in front of the supreme court?
If I remember right, Roe vs Wade is considered a litmus case judgement that allows society to evaluate the makeup of the Supreme Court justices.
Just curious.
|
GWB's 2 recent appointments to the SCOTUS are both conservative. The Democrates didn't have enough votes to block the appointments, and the fillibuster didn't last long. Justice John Roberts has even stated in the past that he believes Roe v Wade was an incorrect decision. So South Dakota believes this is as good a time as any to try and overturn that decision.
I'm not sure how this will make it to the Supreme Court. The pro-choice crowd will have already filed to have the SD ban thrown out, it will go to the judge, and the judge will say this was decided based on prior case law (Roe v Wade) and throw out the ban. I'm not sure what grounds SD will have to appeal to the next level?
And for the sake of argument, if it did make it to the SCOTUS, will the new justices want to "write new laws from the bench", something conservative Republicans have been screaming against lately?
Sorry for the rambling, just a few things I wanted to say...