Row vs Wade overturned

1982:
Lewis Powel decides to retire after 10 years on the Supreme Court.

Vice President Bush casts the tie breaking vote to confirm Robert Bork as Powel´s replacement.

1992:
Bork´s opinion in the PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY case declares there is no constitutional right to have an abortion. Justices White, Scalia and Thomas as well as Chief Justice Rhenquist sign Bork´s opinion. Justice Souter and O Conner write concurring opinions upholding the Pennsylvania law but reaffirming Row vs. Wade. Justices Blackmun reads his angry dissent from the bench. Justice Stevens signs on the Blackmun´s view.

Democratic candidates for state legislature use protecting a women´s right to choose a winning issue.

Later 1990s:
No state outlaws abortion, most however adapt restrictions such as bans on partial birth abortions and requiring parental consent for minors.

21st Century: Because of the minorities of people with the strong views on the subject abortion is still a national political issue.
 
Makes sense the matter then reverts to the states, a few conservative states outlaw it, most liberals keep it and abortion ceases to be a national level issue...maybe
 
You don't appear to be in this one, I'm surprised you weren't appointed to the Court to replace Powell.
 

Japhy

Banned
Dear Japhy:

What is really cool about this is it is a recycled and slightly edited version of my first thread on DW.

IF you Glass Onion and Trotesky want to relieve the great AH and the friendly community you can read it here:

http://w11.zetaboards.com/Different_Worlds/index/

No you can't sites been down for more then a year.

And Paul this is a discussion and writing site, creativity much like writing ability and depth in development are things that are prized here. There's nothing cool about regurgitating the same ideas over and over again.

Why don't you ever write a real timeline, I'm sure you'd come up with something interesting.
 
It is very possible, the woman -- Roe, claims that she made her claims with false information given to her and under duress. Breach of process reverses the decision and women's rights groups have to try again.

Maybe also have a rise in neo-peganism, and "induced miscarriages" (which are completely different from abortions. :rolleyes:)
 
It is not likely that the matter would remain with the states. The right wing would federalize it and try and enact prohibitions at a national level. That's just how it operates, there's no real commitment to states rights -it's a tool to enact a particular agenda under certain circumstances.

In terms of real issues, you'd almost certainly see a return to abortion wards in hospitals, dealing with women mutilated by self induced or back alley abortions. There'd certainly be a rise in travel to safe sites, a kind of 'abortion underground.'
 
It is very possible, the woman -- Roe, claims that she made her claims with false information given to her and under duress. Breach of process reverses the decision and women's rights groups have to try again.

I really don't believe her. She's one of those people that completely changed later in life. She became a Conservative Christian, is now no longer a Lesbian...even though you cannot change your sexual orientation. That's of special note here because it shows she didn't just change her opinion, which is perfectly fine, but changed it because she started believing that sort of stuff.
 

Japhy

Banned
I know you did. I'm not saying what you think I'm saying, y'see.

Or are you saying what I think your saying but you think I'm thinking something else about what you're saying?

Either way, McNutt, up your game will you?
 
It is not likely that the matter would remain with the states. The right wing would federalize it and try and enact prohibitions at a national level. That's just how it operates, there's no real commitment to states rights -it's a tool to enact a particular agenda under certain circumstances.

In terms of real issues, you'd almost certainly see a return to abortion wards in hospitals, dealing with women mutilated by self induced or back alley abortions. There'd certainly be a rise in travel to safe sites, a kind of 'abortion underground.'

Before the federalization of the ban goes through though it would indeed become a very profound political issue. IMHO it wouldn't go as swimmingly for the Right as they seem to assume it would, and I think they (or kingmakers among them anyway) know that, or they'd have done something more drastic along these lines by now, sometime between 2002 and 2006 if not earlier. It would galvanize and radicalize what passes for a "left" here in the USA, and gain it larger numbers, and might even lead to a sweeping defeat of the Right across the board, with a Constitutional amendment securing abortion, and others guaranteeing rights of privacy, and perhaps many other trouncing defeats of the modern rightist agenda too. Such as the impeachment of Justices like Scalia and Bork.

Bork I imagine would indeed have moved to restrict abortion at every opportunity that presented itself, as sweepingly as he could manage to. But he'd cross a lot of other lines too and the mess of a Bork appointment to the Court might blow up before an abortion case comes to the bench. There are reasons his nomination failed! I daresay his likely stance on an abortion case was one of the main ones.
-----
By the way, Paul V McNutt, the case's name is Roe v. Wade, not "Row vs. Wade." You got the plain "v." right in your alt-case name (or is that an OTL case decided differently with the other guy on the bench?) so why not in the iconic, thread-naming one? And "Row..." I have no idea where that comes from.
 
Stage 1. For a very brief period, abortion would become a matter for state governments. However, given that different states would have different rules and IIRC, free movement between states is a constitutionally protected right, this would not last long.

Stage 2. The federal government gets involved and without the legal fig-leaf (much as I may be pro-choice, I do consider the legal arguments in Roe vs. Wade to be extremely dubious) of Roe vs Wade, it's going to be a matter for the legislature.

So this is going to depend on who is in control of the legislature at the time - and it isn't going to be a matter of just numbers of Rs and Ds. With actual important decisions to be made instead of posturing, we'd have to consider each ones personal views and their voters, instead of the party line.
 
Top