That would be determined differently in each state. It first goes to the legislature and would remain there unless or until a group of people can get the required signatures to make it a ballot issue.
Thanks.
It seems to me that it would be a ballot issue in every state; there is surely enough interest in it.
I’m actually glad that’s the case; as an abortion-rights supporter, I think there is a much better chance of the public (voters) upholding abortion rights than the legislature. But maybe that’s just me.
Dave - 02:08pm on 08/09/2005
My knowledge of what would happen after Roe is overturned is weak in one area: Would state legislators get to decide, or would all the state’s citizens get to vote on it?
That would be determined differently in each state. It first goes to the legislature and would remain there unless or until a group of people can get the required signatures to make it a ballot issue.
likwidshoe - 02:08pm on 08/09/2005
I’m actually glad that’s the case; as an abortion-rights supporter, I think there is a much better chance of the public (voters) upholding abortion rights than the legislature. But maybe that’s just me
Depends on the state, but I’ve always thought it the other way around Probably has to do with out views of the issue…
If Roe was overturned, abortion would be legal just like it is now in every state until a law was passed to say otherwise because all laws were struck down in ‘73 so they’d have to be repassed, I believe. So, your “side” would have the advantage in that legal abortion would be the status quo automatically. Overturning Roe would also divide the GOP into the more “extreme”, as MI says, pro-lifers and the greater bulk of Americans that want abortion legal just as long as it doesn’t LOOK like a baby (in the 10-12 week range)
Sphagnum - 02:08pm on 08/09/2005
South Dakota, actually, already has a law in place banning abortion should the Supreme Court ever reverse Roe v. Wade.
Rob - 12:08pm on 08/11/2005
Ah yes, now that you mention it, I believe there are a few states that have such laws… but most do not
Sphagnum - 12:08pm on 08/11/2005
I think that Dave`s point was that we are not taking very good care of the people who are already here, whether we are talking about Iraqi civilians, American soldiers, or other people who suffer and die because of our knee-jerk irrationalism. Many people feel that is more important than the destiny of an unborn human being. Simply put, perhaps the born should be cherished above the unborn.
I am glad that the tone of these messages has improved too.I strongly dislike the quite unmerited hostility on both sides of the argument. No-one has lost their grip on reality!
And please don`t talk about terrorist “scumbags”: there were no links between Iraq and 9/11, even if a majority of Americans still believe otherwise. The American media is capable of some pretty large deceptions in service of the status quo, whether that be right or centre politically. (There is no left wing in the States.)
We need to stop throwing insults at those who don`t agree with us - I am worried that anti-terrorist fears have been used to justify all sorts of unethical and greedy activity on the part of this administration and the concerns of a handful of powerful people. Anyone who objects to the “war on terror” (although we´ve created far more terror in Iraq, Vietnam, and Central America than any terrorist organization) is labelled a terrorist sympathiser or a desecrator of 9/11´s victims. (This is not new, however. The anti-war lobby in The First World War was castigated as an insult to the fallen, and the stupidest war imaginable continued until millions had been killed - but with hindsight they were not disrespectful or unpatriotic, they were right.)
Sorry for switching topics like that, and remember that, if you must be patriotic at all, it´s not unpatriotic to question your leaders - they may not have your interests in mind, or at heart.
calm down, USA - 07:09am on 09/12/2005
And please don`t talk about terrorist “scumbags”: there were no links between Iraq and 9/11...
Yes there. And even if there wasn’t, does it matter? Iraq is a terrorist hotbed and has been for decades.
The American media is capable of some pretty large deceptions in service of the status quo, whether that be right or centre politically. (There is no left wing in the States.)
There is a very large left wing segment in America. The problem on your end is that you’re so far removed from the center that just about everything looks “right wing” to you. If you can look at our socialist Democrats and think that they are somehow on the right in any way, fashion, or form, then you, sir, are a communist.
Anyone who objects to the “war on terror” (although we´ve created far more terror in Iraq, Vietnam, and Central America than any terrorist organization)...
This is said a lot by the left both here and worldwide. Care to elucidate a response?
The anti-war lobby in The First World War was castigated as an insult to the fallen, and the stupidest war imaginable continued until millions had been killed - but with hindsight they were not disrespectful or unpatriotic, they were right.
They were right? How could they have stopped the war without war?
Sorry for switching topics like that, and remember that, if you must be patriotic at all, it´s not unpatriotic to question your leaders - they may not have your interests in mind, or at heart.
Yeah,...your comment really had nothing to do with the parent post.
likwidshoe - 09:09am on 09/12/2005
Yes, we´ve created terror. We´ve invaded two countries and killed thousands of civilians! And who funded the Taliban, for example?
The First World War could have been ended. No-one wanted it, but countries were bound together through unwieldy alliances of “honour” and prestige. Not good enough reasons.Surely you don´t believe that that war had to be fought, or could not have been stopped through negotiation?
And yes, I´m afraid that to European eyes, (and I am no leftie myself) there is barely any left-wing representation in American politics. Perhaps it looks that way because the USA is further right in its entire political schema than most European countries, so that what looks left to you looks central to us.
And please, don´t be rude about me going off-topic, does it matter? And anyway you don´t have to reply…
calm down, USA - 05:09am on 09/18/2005
Yes, we´ve created terror. We´ve invaded two countries and killed thousands of civilians!
Newsflash: innocent people die in wars.
I’m sorry to break that to you.
And who funded the Taliban, for example?
Doesn’t matter at this point. Past mistakes do not mean that we can sit on our hands doing nothing about a problem.
The First World War could have been ended. No-one wanted it, but countries were bound together through unwieldy alliances of “honour” and prestige. Not good enough reasons.Surely you don´t believe that that war had to be fought, or could not have been stopped through negotiation?
Negotiation between a bunch of European countries that had built up a bunch of secretive alliances, each with their own (naturally) special interests and causes? Surely you jest. It’s not in the human nature to negotiate for very long with nations that do not trust nor like each other. War is inevitable.
Perhaps it looks that way because the USA is further right in its entire political schema than most European countries, so that what looks left to you looks central to us.
Well yeah. You guys are full on socialist. It’s why your economies are in the dumper, often with steady double digit unemployment (we moan and bitch at 5%). It’s why you guys pay more than double (usually more than three or four times) the amount for gas. Of course we would all look “right” to you. We are still nominally free.
And please, don´t be rude about me going off-topic, does it matter?
Is it “rude” to point out that you went off topic?
likwidshoe - 06:09am on 09/18/2005
Well, yes, I felt it is a little rude, since I had already acknowledged the fact myself and apologised for it! But not to worry,I know this can be a heated site!
I´m interested to hear that you think you are more free than us in Western Europe. I would argue that your mainstream media is rather more controlled than ours, for example. Also, I don´t think are economies are in the dumper. I simply don´t accept that. And fine, we pay a bit more for petrol, but we´re supposed to be getting out of our cars, and the tram and train system in Scandinavia and Germany is cheap, civic and efficient. I don´t see that as being less free. We are certainly not socialists here in Western Europe, but in many countries we do lean towards free healthcare and schooling whenever possible. Is is less free to have good free education and good public services?
I am not claiming that we are the freest, I´m merely trying to point out that your assumption that you are the most free may not be true from all or even most points of view.
And to answer your first point about innocent people dying in wars, I accept that (ish). I´m just pointing out that we are creating just as much terror and carnage to innocent people as, if not more than, we have suffered at the hands of the other side. It´s not necessarily that I´m against the Iraq war, although I feel it has made the world a less safe place, and that we were lied to outrageously, but it´s the assumption of moral rectitude that offends me. Now, don´t get me wrong: I deplore the actions of Islamic fundamentalists, there´s no question over that. However, the debate over the war on terror has been characterised by knee-jerk emotionalism, irrationalism and jingoistic bias, and in our re-embracing of torture we have shown ourselves capable of barbarism. For this reason, I think we have helped turn many people into terrorists.
Talking about past mistakes does not help, but I feel a little circumspection is in order, a little balance and humility. We must guard against flag-waving and back-patting and we must always retain a scepticism about our leaders. But all of that has been forgotten and sadly the mantra of “my country, right or wrong!” often prevails.
Thanks for replying, despite being still off topic!!
Thanks.
It seems to me that it would be a ballot issue in every state; there is surely enough interest in it.
I’m actually glad that’s the case; as an abortion-rights supporter, I think there is a much better chance of the public (voters) upholding abortion rights than the legislature. But maybe that’s just me.
My knowledge of what would happen after Roe is overturned is weak in one area: Would state legislators get to decide, or would all the state’s citizens get to vote on it?
That would be determined differently in each state. It first goes to the legislature and would remain there unless or until a group of people can get the required signatures to make it a ballot issue.
Depends on the state, but I’ve always thought it the other way around
Probably has to do with out views of the issue…
If Roe was overturned, abortion would be legal just like it is now in every state until a law was passed to say otherwise because all laws were struck down in ‘73 so they’d have to be repassed, I believe. So, your “side” would have the advantage in that legal abortion would be the status quo automatically. Overturning Roe would also divide the GOP into the more “extreme”, as MI says, pro-lifers and the greater bulk of Americans that want abortion legal just as long as it doesn’t LOOK like a baby (in the 10-12 week range)
South Dakota, actually, already has a law in place banning abortion should the Supreme Court ever reverse Roe v. Wade.
Ah yes, now that you mention it, I believe there are a few states that have such laws… but most do not
I think that Dave`s point was that we are not taking very good care of the people who are already here, whether we are talking about Iraqi civilians, American soldiers, or other people who suffer and die because of our knee-jerk irrationalism. Many people feel that is more important than the destiny of an unborn human being. Simply put, perhaps the born should be cherished above the unborn.
I am glad that the tone of these messages has improved too.I strongly dislike the quite unmerited hostility on both sides of the argument. No-one has lost their grip on reality!
And please don`t talk about terrorist “scumbags”: there were no links between Iraq and 9/11, even if a majority of Americans still believe otherwise. The American media is capable of some pretty large deceptions in service of the status quo, whether that be right or centre politically. (There is no left wing in the States.)
We need to stop throwing insults at those who don`t agree with us - I am worried that anti-terrorist fears have been used to justify all sorts of unethical and greedy activity on the part of this administration and the concerns of a handful of powerful people. Anyone who objects to the “war on terror” (although we´ve created far more terror in Iraq, Vietnam, and Central America than any terrorist organization) is labelled a terrorist sympathiser or a desecrator of 9/11´s victims. (This is not new, however. The anti-war lobby in The First World War was castigated as an insult to the fallen, and the stupidest war imaginable continued until millions had been killed - but with hindsight they were not disrespectful or unpatriotic, they were right.)
Sorry for switching topics like that, and remember that, if you must be patriotic at all, it´s not unpatriotic to question your leaders - they may not have your interests in mind, or at heart.
And please don`t talk about terrorist “scumbags”: there were no links between Iraq and 9/11...
Yes there. And even if there wasn’t, does it matter? Iraq is a terrorist hotbed and has been for decades.
The American media is capable of some pretty large deceptions in service of the status quo, whether that be right or centre politically. (There is no left wing in the States.)
There is a very large left wing segment in America. The problem on your end is that you’re so far removed from the center that just about everything looks “right wing” to you. If you can look at our socialist Democrats and think that they are somehow on the right in any way, fashion, or form, then you, sir, are a communist.
Anyone who objects to the “war on terror” (although we´ve created far more terror in Iraq, Vietnam, and Central America than any terrorist organization)...
This is said a lot by the left both here and worldwide. Care to elucidate a response?
The anti-war lobby in The First World War was castigated as an insult to the fallen, and the stupidest war imaginable continued until millions had been killed - but with hindsight they were not disrespectful or unpatriotic, they were right.
They were right? How could they have stopped the war without war?
Sorry for switching topics like that, and remember that, if you must be patriotic at all, it´s not unpatriotic to question your leaders - they may not have your interests in mind, or at heart.
Yeah,...your comment really had nothing to do with the parent post.
Yes, we´ve created terror. We´ve invaded two countries and killed thousands of civilians! And who funded the Taliban, for example?
The First World War could have been ended. No-one wanted it, but countries were bound together through unwieldy alliances of “honour” and prestige. Not good enough reasons.Surely you don´t believe that that war had to be fought, or could not have been stopped through negotiation?
And yes, I´m afraid that to European eyes, (and I am no leftie myself) there is barely any left-wing representation in American politics. Perhaps it looks that way because the USA is further right in its entire political schema than most European countries, so that what looks left to you looks central to us.
And please, don´t be rude about me going off-topic, does it matter? And anyway you don´t have to reply…
Yes, we´ve created terror. We´ve invaded two countries and killed thousands of civilians!
Newsflash: innocent people die in wars.
I’m sorry to break that to you.
And who funded the Taliban, for example?
Doesn’t matter at this point. Past mistakes do not mean that we can sit on our hands doing nothing about a problem.
The First World War could have been ended. No-one wanted it, but countries were bound together through unwieldy alliances of “honour” and prestige. Not good enough reasons.Surely you don´t believe that that war had to be fought, or could not have been stopped through negotiation?
Negotiation between a bunch of European countries that had built up a bunch of secretive alliances, each with their own (naturally) special interests and causes? Surely you jest. It’s not in the human nature to negotiate for very long with nations that do not trust nor like each other. War is inevitable.
Perhaps it looks that way because the USA is further right in its entire political schema than most European countries, so that what looks left to you looks central to us.
Well yeah. You guys are full on socialist. It’s why your economies are in the dumper, often with steady double digit unemployment (we moan and bitch at 5%). It’s why you guys pay more than double (usually more than three or four times) the amount for gas. Of course we would all look “right” to you. We are still nominally free.
And please, don´t be rude about me going off-topic, does it matter?
Is it “rude” to point out that you went off topic?
Well, yes, I felt it is a little rude, since I had already acknowledged the fact myself and apologised for it! But not to worry,I know this can be a heated site!
I´m interested to hear that you think you are more free than us in Western Europe. I would argue that your mainstream media is rather more controlled than ours, for example. Also, I don´t think are economies are in the dumper. I simply don´t accept that. And fine, we pay a bit more for petrol, but we´re supposed to be getting out of our cars, and the tram and train system in Scandinavia and Germany is cheap, civic and efficient. I don´t see that as being less free. We are certainly not socialists here in Western Europe, but in many countries we do lean towards free healthcare and schooling whenever possible. Is is less free to have good free education and good public services?
I am not claiming that we are the freest, I´m merely trying to point out that your assumption that you are the most free may not be true from all or even most points of view.
And to answer your first point about innocent people dying in wars, I accept that (ish). I´m just pointing out that we are creating just as much terror and carnage to innocent people as, if not more than, we have suffered at the hands of the other side. It´s not necessarily that I´m against the Iraq war, although I feel it has made the world a less safe place, and that we were lied to outrageously, but it´s the assumption of moral rectitude that offends me. Now, don´t get me wrong: I deplore the actions of Islamic fundamentalists, there´s no question over that. However, the debate over the war on terror has been characterised by knee-jerk emotionalism, irrationalism and jingoistic bias, and in our re-embracing of torture we have shown ourselves capable of barbarism. For this reason, I think we have helped turn many people into terrorists.
Talking about past mistakes does not help, but I feel a little circumspection is in order, a little balance and humility. We must guard against flag-waving and back-patting and we must always retain a scepticism about our leaders. But all of that has been forgotten and sadly the mantra of “my country, right or wrong!” often prevails.
Thanks for replying, despite being still off topic!!