The AP published another Supreme Court/Abortion poll today. It is noteworthy because it shows that nearly 60% of respondents both don't know who Rehnquist is, and seem to support Roe. Not necessarily the same folks, of course.
But as usual, the Roe question was phrased in a way that is at best misleading.
The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe v. Wade made abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. Do you think President Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Roe v. Wade decision, or nominate justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision?Which is not what Roe did. Or rather, it's not all that Roe did. Abortion in the second and third trimesters is also legalized by Roe if the life or health of the mother is threatened. This last part is a loophole that allows everything -- who is to say which perceptions of "a threat to health" are valid and which are not? The abortion doctor, of course.
The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe v. Wade made abortion by any means at any point during pregnancy legal, for adults as well as minors (with or without their parents permission or knowledge). Do you think President Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold this decision, justices that would limit some of these rights, or justices who would return all these questions to the states?In any case the AP question does not measure support for what Roe actually did.
The worst aspect, IMO, is saying that Roe "made abortion legal" at any stage of pregnancy. Thus, it's a safe bet that almost everyone respondent who supports legalized abortion told the Ass. Press that he "supported Roe."
Posted by: Xrlq at November 29, 2004 08:48 PMWell, OK, except that NO state law at the time was as liberal as Roe was ultimately construed to be. Nor would most state laws be as liberal if Roe was repealed. Roe is probably more liberal than ANY legislature would accept.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at November 29, 2004 09:12 PMThat can't be right. If it were, all states would have essentially uniform laws on abortion. The only way you can have as much variation as you do is for some states to be more pro-abortion that Roe (or Casey, or whatever).
Posted by: Xrlq at December 1, 2004 06:41 PMAs far as I know, the only thing a state can do that is more liberal than Roe, is to provide state-funded abortions.
But there seems to be no constitutional state law that prevents ANY abortion at ANY time, so long as the magic "danger to health" box is checked.
Perhaps there's some 1-day waiting period or some parental notification law I'm unfamiliar with that's passed muster, but Roe's "health of the mother" provisions shoot down nearly any restriction on abortion.
What I'm really unclear on is how many states are operating without legislation on the subject. IOW, how many federal or state court orders are serving as law, based on Roe, that will evaporate with Roe?
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at December 1, 2004 08:50 PM