Will Roe versus Wade be overturned?
96281
Sadly, not likely.  Even with the new Chief Justice and Associate Justice, it is not likely that the court will mess with existing precident.\n\nHopefully, though, the court will see fit to uphold such things as bans on late-term, will require parental notification for teenagers, and will require these "doctors" to become required reporters of abuse like all other medical professionals.
1008585
It is conceivable that the US Congress might try to pass a law outlawing abortion federally. \n\nWomen who have taken their reproductive freedom and personal privacy in this area should be aware that the shrill vocal minority who oppose freedom of choice are doing their best to deprive them of their rights.\n\nThe countervailiing position to the argument that a fetus is a human is that, so is the impregnated female. She is not an incubating machine who should have to bear the seed of a rapist or a relative to term just to satisfy the moral smugness of a minority of the populace.\n\nolderandwiser is right on. I am buying up stock in coat hangar factories right now.
264556
The hope of the Pro-life camp in South Dakota (and elsewhere) is that it wll be tied up in court long enough for John Paul Stevens to retire (he is 85), and GWB will pick his replacement (who of course will be Pro-Life) giving the Supreme Court a majority of 5 who will overturn Roe v Wade.\n\nSo it isn't a matter of the proponents of the law hoping there will be no legal challenge, quite the contrary: they welcome that legal challenge.
1072414
It's really amazing to me how many people don't see the freight train hiding being their little conservative posterboard...\n\nDo you know why China can mandate abortions and force sterlizations? Because reproductive choice is not a guaranteed right.\n\nAs soon as Casey is overturned (for those who forget: Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992) we've lost freedom from government intereference in reproductive choice.\n\nIt's not about abortion. It's about who gets to make the decisions. Right now, it's the individual. But if the Supreme Court decides that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, and thus subject to state regulation, try to imagine what could happen.\n\nNew York could pass a law saying that anyone making less than $30K per year cannot have children, and must abort any pregnancy, because they obviously cannot support them financially. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. It's up to the states to decide.\n\nSouth Dakota has already outlawed abortion, even in the case of rape or incest or permanent harm to the mother. Then, they decide that they have too little population, and require every female under the age of 28 who is not celibate to have at least one child. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected.\n\nOr North Carolina or Texas decides that convicted felons should never have children, and starts imposing mandatory sterilization as part of criminal sentences. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. Let the states decide. Right?\n\nOnce the right to reproductive privacy is taken away by the court, it will be decades before it can be reestablished. Conservatives better start praying, if they get their wish, that during that time they don't become the minority under a legislation that decides to require abortions. Because, once that right to personal choice is lost, the government will always be able to decide whether you can have children or not.\n\nDo people really want to live in a country where state legislatures can decide who can be pregnant, and who cannot, and who must?  Do people really have that much trust and faith in government that they think the legislature will always make the right choices? Because we'll be stuck with those decisions.\n\nWhy can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?
105506
There are only 4 conservative justices currently on the Supreme Court, not enough to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Note the correct spellings:  (1) conservative; (2) Roe; and (3) Wade.
372350
Nobody knows the actual decision-making process except the members of the Court themselves.  The deliberations are private and not recorded; the only records are each Justice's personal notes.\n\nBut the reality is that there is likely not very much actual "deliberation."  Before arguments are even heard, the Justices have reviewed the briefs, facts, and the law and may know how s/he will vote early in the process.\n\nThe Justices discuss the case prior to (sometimes) and after arguments.  Then the Chief Justice will call for a vote and assign a writer for the majority opinion and dissent.\n\nThere have been times where it is speculated that a Justice was leaning one way on a particular issue and was "swayed" by another Justice.  This is probably pretty rare though.  (One example might be Kennedy joining O'Connor in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the last major challenge to Roe v. Wade.  There may have been a change in the wording of the opinion to appease Kennedy's concerns that abortion rights would be too "strong.")
1049210
Republicans are smart folks just like Democrats - lil mutual respect between friends maybe. It's good that your friends are open minded, & you should be too. There are equally good reasons for everything on the republican agenda, and if they're actually conservatives I think you'll find they are pretty mad at how liberal Pres Bush's agenda has been. \n\nOn Abortion, I don't think it ought to be overturned, but I do think there are WAY too many of them & they should be restricted in several reasonable & practical ways that help people make good decisions. Pro-life candidates can't outlaw abortion, even if they won so much of the Congress to pass it as an amendment there wouldn't be enough states to approve it. However, what they can do is pass those restrictions I refered to, and so I can support them with no problems. As a side note, I think abortion is a sin, but that's between you & God, and he tells me (long about Romans) he's plenty capable of judging folks w/o my help.
282646
If there was any question about her advance directive, the hospital was correct to save her life.  In order to win the lawsuit, she'll have to prove that the hospital knew of her advance directive (as well as the doctor who saved her) and willfully violated the directive.\n\nWithout that, she doesn't stand a chance.
270678
From what I understand about the case, the states determined abortion laws, and still do.  So, if it is illegal in one state, a woman can travel to another to have the procedure performed.  \nBut, I have always wondered the answer to this myself.  I assumed it would outlaw any abortions except those to save the mother's life.  But, that assumption must be wrong or you wouldn't have asked this question.
890001
If you do nothing else today, please trust me on this -- the top two answerers to this question are totally wrong.\n\nOf course Congress can overturn the Supreme Court, and does so frequently. The Supreme Court rules in one of two ways:\nStatutory Interpretation, and Constitutional Interpretation.\n\nUnder Statutory Interpretation, the court is interpreting a law made by Congress. Some years ago, the Supreme Court made a series of interpretations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress was not amused by these rulings; and to rebuff the court, re-wrote the law in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.\n\nIf the court is interpreting statute, Congress can check the Supreme Court be re-writing the statute, thus nullifying the court's ruling. This is Congress saying to the court -- "No. You got it wrong. We didn't mean THAT at all. THIS is what we meant."\n\nIf the Court is ruling on a matter of Constitution, Congress can rebuff the Supreme Court by passing a new Constitutional amendment and forwarding it on to the states for ratification. \n\nAfter what many in Congress deemed to be poor Supreme Court rulings based on the 14th amendment, Congress passed and sent on to the states, the 15th Amendment, as a means of trying to put the courts back in line.\n\nFurthermore, Article III of the Constitution gives Congress total control over the Supreme Court's appellate docket. If Congress wanted to, they could pass a law, and then forbid the court to accept cases based on it. They did this a few years ago by forbidding the court to hear cases based on the Defense of Marriages Act. The effect of this is to impose a "gag rule" on the court.\n\nCongress has MANY checks on the court -- trust me.
997285
The Abortion Debate\nShould abortion be legal?\nShoud Roe vs. Wade be overturned?\nHere are the two sides:\n\nPro-Life: Once conceived, the fetus is a LIFE, so it's a crime to kill it.  Therefore, abortions should be illegal\n\nPro-Choice: Having a baby is not always the best thing to do (If the mom was raped and became pregnant, if she's too young or immature to be a parent, if she's a single parent and can't handle it, if she doesn't have the money to support a child, if she'll just be bringing the child into a horrible life...).  Thus, the woman should have a CHOICE in whether to give birth to the baby or to have an abortion.
416176
nothing.  it's a power that women have, not a right.  So make all the rules you want, women will still take care of business.  FYI if no one had an abortion, there'd be 25% more people.
654087
What this country needs is for YOU to read the Constitution.\n\nNearly everything you are babbling about is not accurate.  Even the courts screw it up sometimes.  Roe vs. Wade was decided based on a right to "privacy".  Go find the word in the Constitution, and while you are at it find the word "torture".\n\nI seldom come to this section just because of people like you who know so little about this country and what it is based on.  \n\nI will leave now, and go somewhere else where the average IQ of questioners is a positive number.
616378
It depends on the circumstances - If the mother's life is in jeopardy then yes, they may suggest an abortion or if the fetus has some sort of disease (severe retardation) could be another instance
27767
If Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the federal government passed a bill outlawing abortion, then yes, it would be illegal to have an abortion in the United States.  In a federal system like ours, laws passed by the national Congress have supreme authority (in other words they override) any state law, so if a state did have laws making abortion legal, there would be a conflict and the federal ban would prevail.  However, being an avid watcher of the Supreme Court, I doubt that such a federal ban would be upheld as Constitutional.  Hope that helps.
248402
To early to tell, but I worry that they will turn over roe v. wade.
955611
this is something I never could understand, I think if anyone did 5 minutes research they would see it was a republican Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion for Roe VS Wade in the Supreme Court, It was also a republican Supreme Court Chief Justice at the time also, Mrs Bush has even said on national TV (The Today Show) she does not believe the Roe VS Wade should be over turned and thought here husband agreed with her. The Roe VS Wade ruling was about not letting the Government control to make the decision for whats  right for a individual, the same with gun control, when the biggest gun control bill in recent history has been the Brady bill,( a Conservative backed bill) yes, both issues had allot of liberal support, but as in both things, but there is allot of gray area, that they misinform people with