And again, what was not viable then, is obviously viable now, thanks to awesome advances in technology. Thanks to western medicine, viability occurs earlier and earlier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Precedent isn't unassailable but respect for it is part of the judicial process without which you'd have chaos in the courts. We're not talking about a bad ruling on littering here, this is a super precedent. To really make abortion illegal would likely require an amendment.

True.

It would be easy in this day and age for states to make it legal, which most probably would. Abortion legality is not the primary consideration. It's most importantly about maintaining the constitutional order and keeping political power where it belongs--the people, not the Court.

The Court's decision in Roe rested on a misreading of various portions and amendments in the Constitution. A Court revisit of the matter could correctly return power over a hotly disputed societal issue back into the hands of the people where it belongs.

It has hardly changed. Awesome advances have made it so viability has improved by a week or so in a limited percentage of cases. Nothing in that to change roe v. Wade. Appreciate you confirming that though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There seems to be a disconnect between what you say and what various pundits on the left are worried about re the future of Roe v. Wade and abortion if Trump can stack the court in favor strict construction originalists:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-ma...r-scotus-news/

If 45 years ago I’d have said that in 2018 abortion would be permitted in Ireland and they will be trying to outlaw it in the USA you’d have thought I was nuts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting . . .

R v W IMO is here to stay. Those wishing to terminate their potential children is ingrained in our culture. To many women it's an agonizing decision, but sadly many others use it as a routine method of birth control.

But what could come into play in the SC is tax payer funding of organizations that perform abortions. If you want to terminate your child you shouldn't depend on others to pay for it.

It's worth noting though that taxpayer funding of abortions is already illegal.

Yes, I'm thinking the Planned Parenthood defunding issue. I'm sure if it were defunded the case would rise to the SC.

The thing is, most of the federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is from preventative care reimbursements for people who qualify for Medicaid and Title X. It's not like there's a taxpayer line item in the budget for PP. They're just providing federally funded service like any hospital. Oh, and hospitals perform abortions as well...

I think we can all find some humor here, except maybe the Super Elite
https://thenib.com/socialist-surpris...tm_source=link

Understood.

This would be a brilliant idea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.60e1575f446c

"The thing is, most of the federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is from preventative care reimbursements for people"

The other thing is, and you know this, is that cash is liquid, so if the feds give PP $100 to buy mammogram equipment, that's $100 more that PP can free up to fund abortions. That's why if this wasn't about funding abortions, liberals would embrace the conservative notion of defunding PP, but diverting every cent of that (thus no cuts to overall funding) to clinics that don't perform abortions. Problem solved. But liberals won't get on board, and there's only one reason why. It's about abortion.

Coming from the guy who thinks that GOP presidential nominees should pick extremely liberal democrats, as their VP pick.

A good idea for you. A laughable suggestion for me, and I can't imagine Trump's response, but it probably ends with, "and the horse you rode in on".

Meanwhile, the unofficial list of 3 finalists includes the name Amy Barrett, but sadly omits the name Merrick Garland.

We need more such, like Gore-such.

But the feds don't give PP cash to buy equipment. They're also a non-profit organization so it's not like profit from a health screening could be used to offset abortion costs.

Texas did eliminated funding for PP and replaced it with a Pro-life organization, how well did that work.
https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/...ned-parenthood

That doesn't look like it worked. Doesn't mean it can't work. One woman failed to start up an effective clinic in one place. Does that mean we should stop trying.

Problem is they think they can impact abortion by going after legitimate family planning services. The net result is people without means can't afford contraception and the rate of unintended pregnancies goes up and the burden on taxpayers goes up.

This is the kind of stupid merry-go-round that can be stopped by hitting the federal off button.

"The net result is people without means can't afford contraception"

Please tell me, who can't afford condoms? I keep hearing of all these people who can't afford birth control, and it makes no sense.

"the burden on taxpayers goes up"

If it means keeping babies alive, raise my taxes.

Sure, just like Bill Clinton nominated Robert Bork after he was elected, right?

Why not just suggest that all Republicans who win elections at any level, step down and hand the office over to the democrat? Would that make you happy?

If elections have consequences when Obama wins, then elections have consequences when Trump wins.

Not really. Push it to the states and you either have taxpayers still funding it or poor people having children they don't want increasing abortion or worse illegal abortion. Title X is a Republican policy I'd note.

Perhaps you have not noticed. Not all states act the way Spence thinks they should or would. And states can't print money. They have tighter budgetary restrictions. And its amazing how most people are able to do things like having less children or "afford" contraceptives when there is no sugar daddy paying for it.

And abortion and the burden or joy of having children are individual and state by state concerns. They are not, constitutionally, federal concerns.

I asked you a few times before if you believe states are necessary. If it would be better, more efficient, if we dissolved state governments, state sovereignty, and have only one unitary state, the so-called federal government. We could even do away with the Constitution, which limits the central government, and have the all powerful government which can do whatever is required to make life good and comfortable for us all.

Care to give an opinion on that question?