5 Dramatic Changes that will happen if the Liberals Replace Scalia-Abortion

Loading...
Abortion

A liberal replacement for Scalia would guarantee almost unlimited abortion rights, probably far into the future.

Many Texas abortion clinics could close, an outcome that may have happened anyway with Scalia on the court.

The court next month will hear the most significant abortion case since 1992, when the justices ruled states could legally impose restrictions on abortion that did not put an “undue burden” on access to the procedure. This term’s abortion case, which centers on restrictions Texas placed on providers and clinics, will again test how far states can go to limit abortion.

The court is expected to be divided along familiar partisan lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy serving as a possible swing vote. A 4-4 decision in the case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, would leave in place a lower court ruling that upheld the restrictions on clinics.

The debate over whether or not abortion should be a legal option continues to divide Americans long after the US Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision on Roe v. Wade declared the procedure a “fundamental right” on Jan. 22, 1973.

Proponents, identifying themselves as pro-choice, contend that choosing abortion is a right that should not be limited by governmental or religious authority, and which outweighs any right claimed for an embryo or fetus. They say that pregnant women will resort to unsafe illegal abortions if there is no legal option.

Opponents, identifying themselves as pro-life, contend that personhood begins at conception, and therefore abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being. They say abortion inflicts suffering on the unborn child, and that it is unfair to allow abortion when couples who cannot biologically conceive are waiting to adopt.

Variations exist in arguments on both sides of the debate. Some pro-choice proponents believe abortion should only be used as a last resort, while others advocate unrestricted access to abortion services under any circumstance. Pro-life positions range from opposing abortion under any circumstance to accepting it for situations of rape, incest, or when a woman’s life is at risk.




Loading...
  • RiverMikeRat

    Senate Republicans doing what they were elected and are paid to do? LOL. That’s a good one. Mitch has already promised that he would tear up The Constitution and not hold confirmation hearings. That is not surprising whatsoever. I doubt he’s ever read The Constitution.

    • bunky doodle

      no time limits to nominate or to approve. you are wrong. read my prior post rat man

      • RiverMikeRat

        No, but it is their Constitutional duty to hold hearings when he nominates a replacement. They need to quit playing party politics with the running of our government.

  • bunky doodle

    not confirming a justice promptly is well established in american history. go to 1844 and you see john tyler waiting over a year. fdr also got to wait more than a year. the dems in 1960 had a resolution from congress stating no jusstice should be nominated or approved in the last yr of a presidency. in 2007 senator shumer of ny, said in the last 18 mos of the presidents term no justice should be approved, another democrat. tearing up the constitution isnt the case here. it is for the president to propose and the senate to depose, at their lesiure. evidently river mike rat has not read the constitution.

    • RiverMikeRat

      John Tyler was president, not a senator.
      FDR was in the middle of something we call a “world war.” Maybe you’re familiar with it?
      And yes, Senate Dems did put forth that resolution, but REPUBLICANS nowhere near Republicans these days) shot it down.

      Back then there weren’t dozens of cases waiting for SCOTUS hearings like there are now.

      Taking due time to consider prior to confirming is well-established. Telling the world you’re not going to do your Constitutional duty is as old as, well, this president’s tenure. NO PRIOR Congress has openly and repeatedly stated they will obstruct a sitting president in the performance of his elected duties. NO PRIOR Congress has openly and repeatedly stated they will purposely fail in performing the duties they were elected and are very well-paid to do. Just this one.

      I have several links to online copies of The Constitution (it’s a very important document, so is capitalized) that I refer to on an almost daily basis. Check out Article II. IF you understand it, it’s very enlightening. And yes, if you need help in understanding it, I’ll be happy to help.

      • bunky doodle

        yep president tyler nominated many times and waited over a year. contrats you do read history. fdr did this prior to ww2. you dont read history. obama filibustered obama nominee alito. schumer stated no president should nominate 18 mos our from end of presidency…..and bush was 18 mos out and there was no vacancy. the constitution is important. president nominates, but, when he wants to do so, not a time line in the constituton. senate holds hearings at their lesiure and votes at their lieisure, nor not. go back to tyler and see what happened to that dear old democrat president….and that was 16 yrs before the republican party was created. you remember back then right…democrat party, the party of slavery. then after the civil war the party of jim crow, and then the party of segregation. abraham lincolin was a republican. welcome to the nfl

        • RiverMikeRat

          FDR did it 1940. WWII was actually in process for more than a year. We just hadn’t officially entered it yet.

          Obama could not filibuster his own nomination.

          Schumer stated that, but REPUBLICANS shot it down.

          http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/02/why-the-current-supreme-court-nomination-situation-isnt-that-unique/

          Yes, if we were to look at the two parties back and today, we’d see that the Democrats are now the party of abolition and the Republicans are the party of slavery. All that Civil Rights and Dixiecrats stuff of the 60’s that Republicans don’t like to remember.

          NFL? You mean Pee Wee football, right? Come on Tebow, hit me with something.

          Edit: Article II of The Constitution states it is the duty of the President to nominate and it is the duty of the Senate to confirm. It says nothing about election year politics.

          However, think of the gridlock and delays if nobody is confirmed until after January 20th, 2017. There can be no majority, no quorum, with 8 Justices. Especially when 4 of them are on two payrolls at the same time.

        • RiverMikeRat
    • Robert Wilson

      None by THIS ADMINISTRATION.

      • bunky doodle

        no, harry reid took four years to confirm an appeals court judge. he finally did. so if it takes a yr, taht will be fast for mcconell vs reid. obama only filabustered a surprme court judge nominee, aliota, when he was a senator. in time he was confirmed. i just do not care to have another far left judge that sends us into reverse and destroys the true meaning of our constitution. it has been corrupted over the years too much. the supreme court is more a legislative branch than a judicial as it is. and i mean that with dems and repubs. doesnt matter. back to the future please

  • bunky doodle

    i know my history well….and avoid the bias’d ny times. and no doubt in normal times, justices would be replaced as the founders invisioned. not left not right, but, rather an independent body, judicial, like the legislative and executive. but, over the decades the supreme court has been corrupted from what the founders envisioned and now it is political. until that ends, all bets are off. unless the party that controls the senate is not as good as it’s word implied the other day. should we elect a democratic socialist, little brother to communism, again the world will twist m ore than it has the past eight years. if we elect a wishy washy republican, the same will be true. we are on the cusp of destruction or salvation, within the nation and the surpreme court. the only difference between the democrat party and the republican party the past decade, is the democrat party is driving us over a cliff at 100 miles per hour, while the republican party is driving us over that same cliff at 90 miles per hour. same result ahead, time is the only difference. where is bill clinton and newt gingrich being fiscally responsible? the surpreme court is a sham as is the other two branch’s of government. should we not right the ship, we are in for the fiat dollar collapse and eventual return to difficult times before recovering to our roots. gold, silver, bitcoin and God.

    • Robert Wilson

      MONEY TALKS! THE MORE MONEY IN YOUR KITTY, THE EASIER IT IS TO GET YOUR “BILLS” PASSED.

  • bunky doodle

    ben carson, herman cain, alan west would differ. if not for the republicans forcing the hand of LBJ no civil rights act would have been signed. it was rejected by the democrats several times. obama filibusted in 2006 i believe. he doesnt practice what he preaches. doing ones constiutional duty in nominating and confirming has no specific time line. check your constitution. im sure all will be completed once this regime is out of power and bernie takes over

  • Robert Wilson

    Obama may leave office, but socialists will be rooted in government, and a liberal justice will nail it down, let’s change the Constitution a bit, Supreme Court Justices should serve a term no longer than a president, 4 yrs. We may not be aware that these justices may be impeached,(similar to what should happen to our noble head of state.)