Garga Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Without debating abortion, when Biden said he’d make abortions the “law of the land”, what does that mean? A constitutional amendment? And then, how is it done? Is that something he can actually do? Or is that one of the pie-in-the-sky promises that politicians make that are very unlikely to actually come to fruition? Again, I don’t want this to be about debating abortion, but I don’t know enough about laws to know what that phrase even means or how whatever it means would be done. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 IMO to quote your wording, "Pie in the Sky". I read something, a week or 2 ago about this. There is a huge conflict, between the Constitution which is the "law of the land" and guarantees religious freedom and the Roe vs Wade ruling. The way it is now, the religious freedom aspects of the Constitution, which are law, seem to be over ridden by Roe vs Wade. If I understood what I read correctly, they will need to revisit this issue, so that religious people are protected under the Constitution. There are no simple solutions to complex issues. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 I don't know what he thinks he means, but I'm glad you mentioned that he said that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneezyone Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 (edited) Thanks, Kand. If Roe were gone, individual state laws would then control access to reproductive healthcare. That unequal access (three/four states have laws that ban access within the first six weeks) would create significant inequities in healthcare provision. Presumably, a federal law would be passed to codify Roe and guarantee equal access nationwide. On what grounds— equal protection, interstate commerce, health and welfare—it would be based, I do not know. There are multiple ways to approach it. Edited October 11, 2020 by Sneezyone 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 1 minute ago, kand said: In fairness, he didn’t say that. He said he’d make roe vs Wade law of the land, which is different. It’s being reported in certain media outlets that he said he would make abortion the law of the land, which is false. Well, technically, RvW is the "law of the land" until it gets overturned. What many people don't realize is that RvW doesn't go nearly as far as many state laws and proposals do. Making RvW the law of the land would dial back abortion rights in many states. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not_a_Number Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 4 minutes ago, SKL said: Well, technically, RvW is the "law of the land" until it gets overturned. What many people don't realize is that RvW doesn't go nearly as far as many state laws and proposals do. Making RvW the law of the land would dial back abortion rights in many states. Wouldn't the state laws supersede it? Or am I misunderstanding? This isn't an area I know a lot about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Just now, Not_a_Number said: Wouldn't the state laws supersede it? Or am I misunderstanding? This isn't an area I know a lot about. That's the whole point of RvW in the first place - it overrode state laws that were more restrictive than the RvW majority opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneezyone Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, SKL said: Well, technically, RvW is the "law of the land" until it gets overturned. What many people don't realize is that RvW doesn't go nearly as far as many state laws and proposals do. Making RvW the law of the land would dial back abortion rights in many states. Since the federal legislation hasn’t been written, we don’t know what it would do. Many states, fearing a change in SCOTUS have already codified greater access to contraception and all forms of reproductive healthcare. Edited October 11, 2020 by Sneezyone 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not_a_Number Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 1 minute ago, SKL said: That's the whole point of RvW in the first place - it overrode state laws that were more restrictive than the RvW majority opinion. Right, but you could guarantee MORE rights than RvW, no? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneezyone Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Just now, Not_a_Number said: Right, but you could guarantee MORE rights than RvW, no? Yes. If Roe fell, some states would experience zero changes. Others would see drastic ones. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not_a_Number Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 13 minutes ago, kand said: This article seems to summarize it pretty well: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5f7c7c57c5b61229a057a43f I think it’s more accurate to say it would make Roe law of the land (codify it into federal law), which is what he said, otherwise it makes it sound like someone if forcing people to get abortions, which obviously isn’t true. I’m anti-abortion myself, but have come to see that it’s far more effective to reduce abortions by helping people not end up in positions where they feel like that’s their only option. No one actually wants an abortion, and the rate has dropped precipitously in the last two decades or so, and especially so during the Obama years, so for me, focusing on what policies are helping that rate fall is the most useful way to reduce abortions and help women and children at the same time. Far more effective than just voting for pro-life politicians, which is what I used to do (and which didn’t end up actually helping). I'm not exactly anti-abortion, but I don't think it's a neutral moral choice, either. It's not like popping a pimple, you know? And I'd want to think about what actually reduces them as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Just now, Not_a_Number said: Right, but you could guarantee MORE rights than RvW, no? Well that's not what they said he said. I really don't know what they are talking about. I have read the Constitution and RvW though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not_a_Number Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Just now, SKL said: Well that's not what they said he said. I really don't know what they are talking about. I have read the Constitution and RvW though. I don't understand. I don't think Roe v. Wade restricts states from giving greater rights than it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneezyone Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 1 minute ago, SKL said: Well that's not what they said he said. I really don't know what they are talking about. I have read the Constitution and RvW though. You can always check his Website or the party platform for details. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Just now, Not_a_Number said: I don't understand. I don't think Roe v. Wade restricts states from giving greater rights than it does. No, I never said that. Like I said, who knows what is meant by "make RvW the law of the land" when it's already the law of the land. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneezyone Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said: I don't understand. I don't think Roe v. Wade restricts states from giving greater rights than it does. It doesn’t. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 (edited) Maybe By An Executive Order? Could be a fairly easy thing to promise supporters and to do that would have symbolic import even if it did not actually DO (change) much of anything? Edited October 11, 2020 by Pen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not_a_Number Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 1 minute ago, SKL said: No, I never said that. Like I said, who knows what is meant by "make RvW the law of the land" when it's already the law of the land. Perhaps a constitutional amendment and not just a judgement from SCOTUS? Or simply federal legislation? Just off the top of my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 However, RvW only goes to a certain point and acknowledges that there is a state interest in restricting abortions beyond that point. Some state laws go beyond that point, others do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said: Perhaps a constitutional amendment and not just a judgement from SCOTUS? Or simply federal legislation? Just off the top of my head. Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not_a_Number Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Just now, SKL said: Good luck with that. Yeah, I didn't say it was likely 😛 . So probably just federal legislation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 I don't see how federal legislation would be appropriate for this kind of matter, but even if one were passed, the Supreme Court could still find such a law unconstitutional. Anyhow the Prez does not pass legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not_a_Number Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Just now, SKL said: Anyhow the Prez does not pass legislation. Well, no, but by that definition the president couldn't talk about any plans at all... I would guess this is assuming that the House and Senate were in a position to do this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneezyone Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 (edited) Healthcare is a very large part of our economy and interstate commerce is certainly affected by our healthcare system. In the before times, interstate travel is how many people gained access to care. There are many ways to make this issue a federal one and legislate. Part of the reason the court has become so influential is because we haven’t had a functioning legislative body. You don’t need executive orders for dreamers, for ex, if Congress passes legislation addressing their issues. Edited October 11, 2020 by Sneezyone 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said: Well, no, but by that definition the president couldn't talk about any plans at all... I would guess this is assuming that the House and Senate were in a position to do this. He could propose legislation. Seeing as how he was a US Senator for, what, 36 years, and then prez of the senate for 8 years, and he didn't make this happen in all that time, ... well, draw your own conclusions .... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneezyone Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 1 minute ago, SKL said: He could propose legislation. Seeing as how he was a US Senator for, what, 36 years, and then prez of the senate for 8 years, and he didn't make this happen in all that time, ... well, draw your own conclusions .... It wasn’t necessary when he was a Senator. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not_a_Number Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, SKL said: He could propose legislation. Seeing as how he was a US Senator for, what, 36 years, and then prez of the senate for 8 years, and he didn't make this happen in all that time, ... well, draw your own conclusions .... I don't have any specific conclusions to draw. They decided it wasn't a priority last time it was possible. They may decide otherwise this time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 (edited) 55 minutes ago, kand said: This article seems to summarize it pretty well: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5f7c7c57c5b61229a057a43f I think it’s more accurate to say it would make Roe law of the land (codify it into federal law), which is what he said, otherwise it makes it sound like someone if forcing people to get abortions, which obviously isn’t true. I’m anti-abortion myself, but have come to see that it’s far more effective to reduce abortions by helping people not end up in positions where they feel like that’s their only option. No one actually wants an abortion, and the rate has dropped precipitously in the last two decades or so, and especially so during the Obama years, so for me, focusing on what policies are helping that rate fall is the most useful way to reduce abortions and help women and children at the same time. Far more effective than just voting for pro-life politicians, which is what I used to do (and which didn’t end up actually helping). I completely agree. Except I think most of the politicians you are referring to are simply anti-abortion, not at all pro-life. It’s very easy for most to be anti-abortion, as it requires nothing from them except righteous anger. Being truly pro-life generally requires much, much more. Edited October 11, 2020 by Frances 6 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree Frog Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 42 minutes ago, Pen said: Maybe By An Executive Order? By legislation if RvW is overturned. "Number one, we don't know exactly what she will do, although the expectation is that she very well may overrule Roe, and the only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation to make Roe the law of the land," Biden said. "That's what I would do." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-roe-v-wade-law-land-supreme-court-supporters/ 3 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 If RvW were overturned because the Supreme Court, upon reflection, felt that it did not reflect the US Constitution accurately, which would be extremely unusual but not unheard of, then legislative action at the state or federal level would govern what laws would be implemented where. That’s why people losing their minds over RvW on either side looks like grandstanding to me. On the one side, it is EXTREMELY unusual, almost unheard of, for the Supreme Court to reverse itself. I can only think of two examples of that, and they were the end result of a lengthy, gradual process of incremental change in that direction over a very long period of years. If the Supreme Court does reverse itself, it will be quite destabilizing, whether you’re for it or against it, because it implies that nothing is truly final. Most jurists would not want to go there. I think it’s very unlikely that this Court will do so, even with the prospective new member confirmed. On the other side, if it was overturned, it would not change things on the ground in many parts of this country—certainly not any place where I have lived or visited frequently. Legislative focus and playing defense of existing state laws would dominate, but I don’t think that there would be much real change. And as for a national law, it would probably pass. After all, Congress had an opportunity to ban late term abortions in Winter of 2017/2018, with Republican majorities in both houses and a President who said that he would sign it, and they declined to do so. So they were posturing hypocritically when they said they would restrict abortion, and in fact, RvW would have allowed them to do so. 8 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 14 minutes ago, Wilrunner3 said: By legislation if RvW is overturned. "Number one, we don't know exactly what she will do, although the expectation is that she very well may overrule Roe, and the only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation to make Roe the law of the land," Biden said. "That's what I would do." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-roe-v-wade-law-land-supreme-court-supporters/ Well if the Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional for the Federal government (via SCOTUS decision) to limit states' rights to limit abortions, then the same Supreme Court logic would apply to Federal legislation. Seems certain politicians are hoping certain American voters are too ignorant to see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 13 minutes ago, SKL said: Well if the Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional for the Federal government (via SCOTUS decision) to limit states' rights to limit abortions, then the same Supreme Court logic would apply to Federal legislation. Seems certain politicians are hoping certain American voters are too ignorant to see that. I’m confused by your last sentence. What advantage would there be for certain politicians if certain American voters are too ignorant to see that? If abortion is the primary issue for a voter on either side of the aisle, the positions of the two parties are already clear. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 24 minutes ago, SKL said: Well if the Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional for the Federal government (via SCOTUS decision) to limit states' rights to limit abortions, then the same Supreme Court logic would apply to Federal legislation. Seems certain politicians are hoping certain American voters are too ignorant to see that. I think that’s pretty much been the plan on a multitude of issues, all party platforms, for at least a couple of decades. Certainly for as long as I have been voting. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 6 minutes ago, Quill said: I think that’s pretty much been the plan on a multitude of issues, all party platforms, for at least a couple of decades. Certainly for as long as I have been voting. While I generally agree with this, I don’t see how it applies here. If keeping abortion legal is very important to someone, I would think it is already clear what the position of any candidate is. Even if what Biden suggests is not possible, certainly he might affect the issue in other ways if he became president, such as Supreme Court nominees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 36 minutes ago, SKL said: Seems certain politicians are hoping certain American voters are too ignorant to see that. Actually the greatest source of confusion that I have seen, online and IRL, is that many people seem to believe that overturning RvW = outlawing abortion, which is of course totally false. It just means that some states will be able to outlaw it, forcing women to travel to states where its legal. 8 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 39 minutes ago, Corraleno said: Actually the greatest source of confusion that I have seen, online and IRL, is that many people seem to believe that overturning RvW = outlawing abortion, which is of course totally false. It just means that some states will be able to outlaw it, forcing women to travel to states where its legal. And as always, the poorest and most marginalized will be the most effected. I also wonder if people who want to make it illegal are aware of what happens in other countries where it is illegal, including women having natural miscarriages being charged and even jailed, often leaving their other children without a mother. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/10/what-life-when-abortion-banned 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 1 hour ago, kand said: Absolutely agree. That’s part of what shifted my thinking on this. It’s ironic when I think about it that the importance to me of being pro-life contributed in a large way to turning me away from politicians who claim to be “pro-life”. It’s used as a political pawn, but it doesn’t seem to actually be important to very many of them. Bolded QFT. I am pro-life (and anti-abortion), but I lost faith in politics as an instrument of change a long time ago. The vast majority of "pro-life" politicians don't seem to care enough to actually do anything about abortion; claiming the label is a simply a way to get votes from people who would otherwise (I hope) find certain candidates reprehensible. Not to mention that you cannot, in my view, be truly pro-life and at the same time be a warmonger and a menace to public health. 7 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not_a_Number Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, MercyA said: Bolded QFT. I am pro-life (and anti-abortion), but I lost faith in politics as an instrument of change a long time ago. The vast majority of "pro-life" politicians don't seem to care enough to actually do anything about abortion; claiming the label is a simply a way to get votes from people who would otherwise (I hope) find certain candidates reprehensible. Not to mention that you cannot, in my view, be truly pro-life and at the same time be a warmonger and a menace to public health. Yeah, that's not pro-life. That's pro-"some specific, convenient to me life." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janeway Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 I do not feel abortion is about religion. It is about the biology of whether or not a child has brain waves or a heart beat, all the things that would qualify the child as still alive when the child is 80 yrs old. I hate that the politicians make it about politics and anyone makes it about religion. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Janeway said: I do not feel abortion is about religion. It is about the biology of whether or not a child has brain waves or a heart beat, all the things that would qualify the child as still alive when the child is 80 yrs old. I hate that the politicians make it about politics and anyone makes it about religion. I agree. I do not believe religion should have anything to do with the abortion debate. I believe that it is fundamentally an issue of human rights and that the pro-life position is fully defensible by science. Edited October 12, 2020 by MercyA 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Frances said: While I generally agree with this, I don’t see how it applies here. If keeping abortion legal is very important to someone, I would think it is already clear what the position of any candidate is. Even if what Biden suggests is not possible, certainly he might affect the issue in other ways if he became president, such as Supreme Court nominees. I was speaking in general to the propensity for political candidates (all of them, any party) to rely on ignorance of the actual issue/law (not just surrounding abortion; surrounding a multitude of issues) to persuade voters their way. A certain candidate got a lot of mileage out of “build a wall” that would be paid for by Mexico. Supporters of that candidate were known to gleefully chant “build a wall!”; were they thinking, “Does that make sense? Is that an important priority? Does that solve the problems I’m being told it would solve? How would we make another country pay for it?” Therefore, candidate was relying on ignorance wrt that particular platform feature. I’m saying: political parties always do this. They rely on ignorance of the issues or law or what is legally possible. They promise things that contrast with what their opponent promises. I don’t know think it typically has anything whatsoever to do with that candidate’s personal beliefs on right or wrong. Personally, I think it would be good if there were either a federal law or Constitutional Amendment having to do with an adult’s ability to make medical and reproductive choices for themselves independent of legal interference. I don’t know exactly how it would need to be worded but it would cover more topics than just abortion. IMO, it would be better if ambiguities surrounding Roe v. Wade were taken out of the Justice branch and were put in the Legislative branch where we can all stop being on pins and needles every time a SC Justice dies, retires, or gets nominated. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonhawk Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 49 minutes ago, MercyA said: Bolded QFT. I am pro-life (and anti-abortion), but I lost faith in politics as an instrument of change a long time ago. The vast majority of "pro-life" politicians don't seem to care enough to actually do anything about abortion; claiming the label is a simply a way to get votes from people who would otherwise (I hope) find certain candidates reprehensible. Not to mention that you cannot, in my view, be truly pro-life and at the same time be a warmonger and a menace to public health. Yes, I've found many politicians are much more "pro-life" August-November of election years. But of course then more immediate issues seem to somehow shove it off their docket during their actual office time. Almost as if it's more convenient to have the issue continue than have it be solved. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not_a_Number Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 31 minutes ago, MercyA said: I agree. I do not believe religion should have anything to do with the abortion debate. I believe that it is fundamentally an issue of human rights and that the pro-life position is fully defensible by science. And so is the pro-choice one, really, because I don't think it's about science 😉 . At the end of the day, this one is about values. Which is OK! Values: we all have them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 12 minutes ago, Quill said: IMO, it would be better if ambiguities surrounding Roe v. Wade were taken out of the Justice branch and were put in the Legislative branch where we can all stop being on pins and needles every time a SC Justice dies, retires, or gets nominated. That's not the way it works. The Supreme Court is there as a check on the legislative and executive branches. It is a great system. Be careful what you wish for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not_a_Number Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 7 minutes ago, SKL said: That's not the way it works. The Supreme Court is there as a check on the legislative and executive branches. It is a great system. Be careful what you wish for. All of these systems go through cycles. The relative powers of the branches go up and down... the idea that there's some stable system that's working well and will always work well isn't true. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, SKL said: That's not the way it works. The Supreme Court is there as a check on the legislative and executive branches. It is a great system. Be careful what you wish for. Well, luckily, no one is looking to me to solve these problems and neither political candidate has called me, asking for my solutions. 😏 It’s moot to me because I did not/don’t choose my candidate based on what they blather on about abortion while they are asking for my vote. I’m a cynic. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 Quote The way it is now, the religious freedom aspects of the Constitution, which are law, seem to be over ridden by Roe vs Wade. This is a lie. If you don't want to have an abortion for whatever reason, including religion, Roe v Wade is not going to force you to have one. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Lanny said: IMO to quote your wording, "Pie in the Sky". I read something, a week or 2 ago about this. There is a huge conflict, between the Constitution which is the "law of the land" and guarantees religious freedom and the Roe vs Wade ruling. The way it is now, the religious freedom aspects of the Constitution, which are law, seem to be over ridden by Roe vs Wade. If I understood what I read correctly, they will need to revisit this issue, so that religious people are protected under the Constitution. There are no simple solutions to complex issues. How are religious freedoms being over ridden by Roe vs Wade? No one is forced to have an abortion. No healthcare provider is forced to perform one. On the contrary, I believe some religious people would say their religious freedom would not be protected if abortion was made illegal, as they would not be able to follow the tenants of their religion and their own conscience in some cases. https://religionnews.com/2020/01/22/why-roe-v-wade-is-a-first-amendment-fight/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2013/01/16/49751/faith-in-values-roe-and-religion/ http://tupress.temple.edu/book/3000 Edited October 12, 2020 by Frances 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not_a_Number Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 Hah, I see this quickly heading towards an abortion debate 😛 . And that's certain to go well 😉 . 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 24 minutes ago, Tanaqui said: This is a lie. If you don't want to have an abortion for whatever reason, including religion, Roe v Wade is not going to force you to have one. No, but there has been a definite tilt toward the expectation that you would have one, societally, in my adult lifetime. 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.