Topic: FAO: Becky
Ks !KansasxqvM started this discussion 14 years ago #23,109
Is a repeal of Roe v. Wade remotely plausible?
I need your expert legal opinion on this matter.
I need your expert legal opinion on this matter.
derpy !hoovesEJmo joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #361,742
Should I draw Becky?
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 27 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,743
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,745
well, yes. actually but there'd need to be a lot of if's.
if Romney is elected, and a couple of justices die/retire, then his conservative appointments could weigh in on several cases that could have an impact on overturning roe v. wade.
an example of a case that is coming up at the moment is out of texas, where a new law states that women are required to view an ultrasound of the baby before they can terminate. That could potentially lead to the court revisiting and overturning roe v wade.
it's kind of a long shot, but roe v wade isn't exactly bullet proof.
if Romney is elected, and a couple of justices die/retire, then his conservative appointments could weigh in on several cases that could have an impact on overturning roe v. wade.
an example of a case that is coming up at the moment is out of texas, where a new law states that women are required to view an ultrasound of the baby before they can terminate. That could potentially lead to the court revisiting and overturning roe v wade.
it's kind of a long shot, but roe v wade isn't exactly bullet proof.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,749
@361,742 (derpy !hoovesEJmo)
You should probably find out what she is wearing, so you can make the drawing as accurate as possible.
You should probably find out what she is wearing, so you can make the drawing as accurate as possible.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,751
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 58 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,754
@361,745 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
Well I know it's possible. I'm just curious how plausible it is realistically.
Well I know it's possible. I'm just curious how plausible it is realistically.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,757
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
meh, not very. but if romney is elected women can stop worrying about their womb. it'll be their states problem.
meh, not very. but if romney is elected women can stop worrying about their womb. it'll be their states problem.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,758
@previous (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
Romney is not gonna win (thankfully). The race isn't even close, it's just news hype.
Romney is not gonna win (thankfully). The race isn't even close, it's just news hype.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Ashe !bbKEtchUp. joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,760
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,761
@previous (Ashe !bbKEtchUp.)
heh, I enjoyed that.
@361,742 (derpy !hoovesEJmo)
Where is your Becky drawing??
heh, I enjoyed that.
@361,742 (derpy !hoovesEJmo)
Where is your Becky drawing??
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 11 seconds later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,763
@361,758 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Do you think Sandy will endanger the election? I can't wait for the religious right to start claiming the storm is a punishment from God.
Do you think Sandy will endanger the election? I can't wait for the religious right to start claiming the storm is a punishment from God.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,764
@previous (D)
Eh, the hurricane will hurt Obama's numbers a bit. But Romney is so far behind it's not gonna be a big deal. I'd be shocked if religious freaks weren't already claiming the hurricane as a punishment from Jesus.
Eh, the hurricane will hurt Obama's numbers a bit. But Romney is so far behind it's not gonna be a big deal. I'd be shocked if religious freaks weren't already claiming the hurricane as a punishment from Jesus.
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,766
I think so, but it would have such a huge impact on other cases that I think it would take a pretty long time--I don't see it happening right away even if the balance on the Court were to change. It would open up a huge wave of litigation around related issues and throw some other closely decided, related matters into doubt.
The basic rule in Roe, the right to privacy, is also behind things like people's ability to home-school, marry who they'd like, and be free from unreasonable search and seizure (the Fourth Amendment being one of the sources of the right to privacy, which isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution). One of the quirks of the conservative judicial philosophy is that they're very much for the right to privacy in many contexts, just not this one. (Or they think it doesn't apply.)
To overturn Roe, I think they first need to reformulate the right to privacy entirely. Currently it's something along the lines of, you have a right to privacy against government intrusion, but only to the extent there isn't a compelling government interest in whatever the issue is. It's been kind of hard to identify the compelling government interest in fetuses being born. They've only been able to chip around the edges of Roe by identifying some other interest (required ultrasounds are just medical screening, which we like; parental notification is okay since parents have an interest in their children's medical care; etc.).
I'd be interested to see a state try to articulate a compelling government interest in their seeing babies born that wouldn't also defeat the right to use contraception (which is just too crazy for anyone to really try to argue for).
Whackjob justices have been writing insane ranting dissents for awhile saying we should overturn, but by now there's a pretty long and consistent history of the Court upholding the fundamental rule. They've come fairly close to overturning before, but I think it's just too messy for them to do lightly.
The basic rule in Roe, the right to privacy, is also behind things like people's ability to home-school, marry who they'd like, and be free from unreasonable search and seizure (the Fourth Amendment being one of the sources of the right to privacy, which isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution). One of the quirks of the conservative judicial philosophy is that they're very much for the right to privacy in many contexts, just not this one. (Or they think it doesn't apply.)
To overturn Roe, I think they first need to reformulate the right to privacy entirely. Currently it's something along the lines of, you have a right to privacy against government intrusion, but only to the extent there isn't a compelling government interest in whatever the issue is. It's been kind of hard to identify the compelling government interest in fetuses being born. They've only been able to chip around the edges of Roe by identifying some other interest (required ultrasounds are just medical screening, which we like; parental notification is okay since parents have an interest in their children's medical care; etc.).
I'd be interested to see a state try to articulate a compelling government interest in their seeing babies born that wouldn't also defeat the right to use contraception (which is just too crazy for anyone to really try to argue for).
Whackjob justices have been writing insane ranting dissents for awhile saying we should overturn, but by now there's a pretty long and consistent history of the Court upholding the fundamental rule. They've come fairly close to overturning before, but I think it's just too messy for them to do lightly.
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #361,767
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #361,770
@361,766 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
I appreciate the in depth answer and explanation. Thank you!
@previous (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
=D
I appreciate the in depth answer and explanation. Thank you!
@previous (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
=D
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #361,774
@361,767 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
You should put your picture in this thread, please. http://minichan.org/topic/22753
k thanks bai
You should put your picture in this thread, please. http://minichan.org/topic/22753
k thanks bai
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 14 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #361,775
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #361,778
@previous (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
I will post hilariously embarrassing pictures of myself if you do so. THanks.
Well, maybe not that embarrassing, but I don't like posting pics at all. I do it for the team, Becky. For the team. So you should you.
I will post hilariously embarrassing pictures of myself if you do so. THanks.
Well, maybe not that embarrassing, but I don't like posting pics at all. I do it for the team, Becky. For the team. So you should you.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,809
@361,774 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
She is afraid we would make fun of her. But based on something she told me - posting image of herself would be a very very bad idea.
She is afraid we would make fun of her. But based on something she told me - posting image of herself would be a very very bad idea.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,810
@previous (G)
You should put your picture in this thread, please. http://minichan.org/topic/22753
k thanks bai
You should put your picture in this thread, please. http://minichan.org/topic/22753
k thanks bai
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #361,812
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 week later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #365,651
bump