After Roe v Wade is overturned, then what?

NKSHawk

HR All-American
Sep 23, 2018
3,398
5,816
113
Iowa
Conservatards lose big in 2020 election and dems stack the Supreme Court with new number of justices and change it all back.

what happened to my body my choice about masks ****wads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnBasedow

hawkedoff

HR Heisman
Jul 25, 2013
8,158
4,347
113
The nice thing about a lifetime appointment to the court is that the justices rarely make everyone happy. Despite what people think they will do the justices are not puppets.
 

ThorneStockton

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2009
20,471
26,235
113
The nice thing about a lifetime appointment to the court is that the justices rarely make everyone happy. Despite what people think they will do the justices are not puppets.
Could you explain your logic? Because it seems to me that a justice could easily be a puppet if they wanted to be, what is to stop them?
 

83Hawk

HR Legend
Sep 17, 2002
15,310
6,258
113
I was not implying you are a Trump supporter. It was a general statement.

However, overturning Roe is most certainly a concern to anyone who cares about the issue.
Well, Roe has been the law of the land for 47 years now and hasn’t been overturned yet.

I think it’s time we moved on from basing supreme court appointments on how the nominee would vote on Roe v Wade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom

JRHawk2003

HR Legend
Jul 9, 2003
40,358
11,115
113
Montrose
Well, Roe has been the law of the land for 47 years now and hasn’t been overturned yet.

I think it’s time we moved on from basing supreme court appointments on how the nominee would vote on Roe v Wade.
Fantasy. As soon as this Cuban woman is appointed, it will be overturned next year
 

TNHAWK79

HR All-State
Gold Member
Jul 28, 2012
676
380
63
MAGAts can then work on rolling back other women’s rights. 1950s here we come.
it’s not a right it’s a consequence of an action. If only there was a way not to become pregnant?!

I grew up when abortion was frowned upon, now it’s almost celebrated. Where is the moral compass? You don’t want a convicted murderer receive the death penalty but a 38 week pregnant woman can off her kid all in the name of “a woman’s right?” Unreal.
 

ANYCHawk

HR Legend
Nov 13, 2007
43,366
36,129
113
I think we should abort this two party system.
For the umteenth time on HROT. The two party system is inevitable when running for one seats. It's going to happen every time and there won't be a third-party is sociology 101.
 
May 27, 2010
10,058
10,590
113
it’s not a right it’s a consequence of an action. If only there was a way not to become pregnant?!

I grew up when abortion was frowned upon, now it’s almost celebrated. Where is the moral compass? You don’t want a convicted murderer receive the death penalty but a 38 week pregnant woman can off her kid all in the name of “a woman’s right?” Unreal.
Celebrated? I must have missed that one. 38th week abortions? Just how common are those?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlickShagwell

naturalmwa

HR King
Feb 4, 2004
101,587
81,147
113
How 'bout we have the mom's sign an agreement, if the unwanted babies grow up to be criminals we just kill them at that point. I mean, what the frack is the difference when we kill the human?
More allegiance to religious procedures over a relationship with Jesus. Drop your stone.
 

Skidlt

HR MVP
Gold Member
Aug 13, 2003
1,986
245
63
To the OPs question: Maybe people start using birth control more often?

While the above is somewhat serious, abortion would become a state issue. Not the end of the world.

We need to get to a point where we understand that there will always be back and forth on these issues. It's okay and healthy in a democracy.

If an issue is truly overwhelmingly popular the constitution has been amended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
70,802
73,638
113
Criminalization against women who get an abortion, and an assault on legal birth control.
 

goldmom

HR Heisman
Mar 29, 2002
9,226
9,546
113
So many more options now than in 1973 - there were no morning after pills, and birth control pills weren't even universally available to women under the age of 21 in some states. And women now are more likely to tell a man he's as responsible for contraception as she is...no glove no love...
I just see this as an overblown scare tactic, and like it or not it's not going to be a right denied to a woman. We're just not going back to those days. Ever.
I think it's a settled issue. But repeated abortions aren't good for women's bodies and shouldn't be used as a primary means of birth control. Health issues, of course. Rape or incest, no question.
Interesting that there are two pages in this thread full of men arguing over what a woman can do with her body. Gosh, you might mistakenly think this is still 1973...
 

fredjr82

HR Legend
Gold Member
Nov 13, 2007
19,389
7,713
113
It’s silly to not let a woman control her body to a certain point.

It silly to kill an unborn child past a certain point.
Surprisingly, this is correct. The earliest gestation without the support of the woman's body is 21 weeks and 5 days. Even at 24 weeks the likely chance of survival is minimal. Lungs and other vital organs aren't developed enough by that point.

Set the threshold for an abortion to 18 weeks and be done with it. The fringe elements of this argument should be ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: L. Wade Childress

mstp1992

HR Legend
Dec 10, 2011
27,183
23,422
113
Cedar Rapids -- Iowa City
faseb.org
Well, Roe has been the law of the land for 47 years now and hasn’t been overturned yet.

I think it’s time we moved on from basing supreme court appointments on how the nominee would vote on Roe v Wade.
Too late. Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh already want to if given the chance. I have some faith Gorsuch (and more in Roberts) won’t fall in line with the ultra right wing evangelical nut jobs, but I’m not particularly sanguine.

Trump already made it clear he wants to overturn Roe, and he would install SCOTUS judges who would do his bidding.
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
70,802
73,638
113
So many more options now than in 1973 - there were no morning after pills, and birth control pills weren't even universally available to women under the age of 21 in some states. And women now are more likely to tell a man he's as responsible for contraception as she is...no glove no love...
I just see this as an overblown scare tactic, and like it or not it's not going to be a right denied to a woman. We're just not going back to those days. Ever.
I think it's a settled issue. But repeated abortions aren't good for women's bodies and shouldn't be used as a primary means of birth control. Health issues, of course. Rape or incest, no question.
Interesting that there are two pages in this thread full of men arguing over what a woman can do with her body. Gosh, you might mistakenly think this is still 1973...
The bad thing is that a lot of people want to return to a time before 1973. And, it isn't just abortion. We have also seen a large push by the far right to restrict access to birth control. Overturning Roe won't be the end of it. Zealots don't celebrate and go home once they win. They will keep pushing farther and harder.