Most Americans want Roe v Wade to stay established law.

Stupid Tommie-poo may not realize that this is precisely why the anti-Roe crusade is being rammed through the Court right now--because everyone's distracted.

Does stupid Tommie-poo approve of forcing raped women to give birth to their rapist's child? Sounds like he does.

Libs don't give a shit about the Constitution.

You are representaive of all the Republicans right now.   They know they screwed the pooch so they want to change the subject.   

Too late. 

 This is a reactionary, Dark Ages Supreme Court that was packed by sleazy politics and special interest groups to chase a fringe issue that is wildly unpopular with America's people.   Republicans put the Federalist society in charge of our Judicial Branch...and this is the result.    They overturn 50 years of reaffirmed precent to roll in their religous cult.      

You broke it - you bought it - changing the subject wont help.

I give PJ an "atta boy" for pointing out that it is an arguable point that Roe vs Wade should be Constitutionally decided at the federal level.  I can understand that argument, although I believe that those who wrote the Constitution intended for such things to be addressed state by state.  PJ's argument is reasonable.

What pisses me off is those who don't believe that the Constitution should be considered.

First of all, no one says that the Constitution shouldn't be considered. But in situations and regarding issues that the Constitution does not address, there is nothing Constitutional to serve as a guide.

Boiler, you're dead wrong about what the framers of the Constitution intended. They crafted the constitutional amendment process precisely because they realized that there was no way to anticipate every issue and situation. They realized that many, many issues would come up that hadn't been, and couldn't be, mentioned in the Constitution.

What you don't realize is that the Bill of Rights was created to address an omission in the original Constitution: there was no mention of fundamental human/citizen rights. Therefore, the Founders considered such rights to be legislated at the federal, not the state level. No state, they decided, should have the power to take away freedom of speech, of religion, etc.

And the right to decide what happens to one's own body is even more fundamental than those rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

Abortion is not in the Constituion.  Your right to privacy is.   Thats the 14th ammendment and thats what the Roe-Wade decision was based upon.    And it was not a partisan divide in the court....it was 7-2 with even conservative justices agreeing with the verdict.    And it was reaffirmed in several other Supreme COurt cases thereafter.

At its core the decision says the government does not have the right to impose its religous beliefs onto a woman about at what point in a pregnancy does a zygote transform into a human being.   It also does not allow the government to weigh the variables surrounding the pregnancy - instead leaving those to the individual.   Was the woman raped?  A victim of incest?  At risk of death with the pregnancy?  Severe birth defects present in the fetus?    Emotional or physical trauma due to pregnancy?  Drug or alcohol problems or health issues that prevent a healthy pregnancy?       this is a partial list.....and these are the variables the court said the individual has the right to consider and not a government bureaucrat.       

But the Federalist Society disagrees with that non-partisan verdict that has been the precedent for 50 years.   And they are the ones running the court now.      

PJ, I have unresolved opinions about abortion.  That being said, I do have a strong opinion on who should decide this issue and that should be at the state level.  I believe that calling a baby a zygote doesn't change the fact that it's a growing baby.  And your privacy argument..............really?  The people should decide the issue as mandated by the Constitution.

By the way, the pro abortion argument is a slippery slope.  Some claim that an abortion at 6 weeks should be allowed, some 10 weeks, and many much later.  Well, then why not at 8 months, or 9 months, or even six months after birth?

Noy my argument, nopt my Constituion.   That was the 7-2 verdict of the non-partisan Supreme Court in 1973 that wasn't prevetted by the Federalist Society.

And you dont know at what point a zygote becomes a human being.   Nobody does.  There is no proven scientific agreement.   To say life begins at conception is an extremist positon that is defined by religion - not science.   And as for the littany of other variables I listed - yeah, I trust the individual to understand the circumstances of their pregnancy better than Samuel Alito.       And so did the Supreme Court for the last 50 years.

I'm not necessarily arguing against abortion.  I am arguing that the Constitution should be followed.  Arguing that "privacy" makes abortion a federal issue to crazy week.  Just because a bunch of sissies in the past made this argument doesn't make it correct.

This issue should be left up to the states, just like laws regarding speeding in a car.

So th 14th ammendment is not in the Constituion ?    Cause thats what the non Federalist Society Court based their opinion on in 1971....and reaffirmed again in the 1980's with Kasey.   And this precedent was acknowledged and was said to be resepected at several of the hearing fo the current class of justices.    

They were obviously lying in their hearings about their respect for precedent and specifically the precedent of this particular issue.        

Liars dont make good judges.