Deb Messling wrote: > > Actually, here's how it works: the states, not the Federal government, > regulate abortion. But as long as Roe vs Wade is the law of the land, > states cannot prohibit abortion,
And Roe v Wade became the law of the land because there were so many contradictions between the state laws regarding abortion that a case finally worked its way to the Supreme Court, and their decision became federal law that overrides state law. If an anti-abortion justice is appointed, the immediate effect would be a lot more challenges on the state level. They probably would not be direct challenges to Roe v. Wade but would be cases having to do with the father's rights, or the unborn baby's rights, or reproductive rights, something that would have the effect of contradicting or overriding Roe v. Wade and thereby attempting to make it meaningless rather than directly overturning it, all on the state level. At some point when there's too much conflict between states' laws (or between the laws within states themselves) a case would work its way to the Supreme Court and they'd make a final decision that would be federal law. If that happened, I'm not sure if some states could hold onto their pro-choice laws. So, one conservative Supreme Court judge and choice is in jeopardy, not instantly, and probably in a roundabout way, but Roe v. Wade, like any decision, can be modified or overturned completely. As Vince mentioned, there have been challenges to Roe v. Wade since it was first decided, but most have ended at the state level. Put a few more conservative state judges in, as Bush is currently trying to do, and such cases may go farther. Even without the addition of Bush's conservative judges, a couple of cases got to the Supreme Court in the past few years, but the Supreme Court's decisions had the effect of upholding Roe v. Wade. One more conservative Supreme Court justice, and that would probably not be the case. any more than they can pass a law > establishing a religion or banning a book. Don't know about state laws establishing religion, but haven't there been communities that have tried (or have) passed laws banning certain books? And then someone challenges such laws in court and they're overturned (or upheld). It's a very alive system, with laws constantly being made, challenged in court, and modified to fit a changing society (not always in a way that pleases everyone, of course; that's why there are constant challenges to many decisions that have been made). If an anti-abortion justice is > appointed to the Court, and Roe is overturned, then the states would be > free to prohibit abortion. Not all states would. New York, bless its > heart, legalized abortion on its own, about a year before the Roe > decision. But I am confident that many, many states would very happily > step in to prohibit abortion if they were constitutionally empowered to do > so. Pennsylvania would; I'm sure of it And, as I understand it, when there are so many contradictory laws that there's no clearcut direction, the Supreme Court would eventually accept a case so they could sort it all out. If their decision had the effect of not allowing abortions, I don't know if states could still have pro-choice laws. New York legalized abortions before Roe v Wade was decided and so before any federal laws regarding abortion were in place. Debra Shea
