The debate "Does Brett Kavanaugh pose a threat to Roe vs Wade" was started by
October 21, 2018, 10:04 am.
8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 3 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
lachlan2 posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, TheExistentialist and 6 visitors agree.
lachlan2, crispsandchips and 4 visitors disagree.
yes, as I said chipping away.
but can a complete repeal even be considered an impossible strawman? I dont believe it is likely, but even the most extreme conclusion is well within the realms of possibility. not that it really even matters as how those undo burdens have caused several states to have 1 or 0 abortion clinics within their areas already. (states are the size of most first world nations)
It's not even so much the Roe V. Wade ruling that's at stake, but rather the principal the ruling established. Roe V. Wade established the right to abortions. However, we've seen multiple states trying to outlaw abortions by placing undue burdens on abortion clinics which in effect outlaw abortions. These are often referred to as TRAP (targeted regulation of abortion providers) laws.
Here are a few examples
Creating legislation which requires a hallway to be a certain width in abortion clinics, even though other outpatient clinics aren't subject to the same regulations. The law applies even to centers that perform chemical abortions only (no surgical abortions)
Requiring the rooms where procedures are performed to be of a certain size even though other outpatient clinics don't have the same requirements. Again this will often include abortion centers that only administer chemical abortions.
Requiring that physicians have admitting privileges even though other outpatient centers aren't subject to such requirements.
Requiring unnecessary medical procedures such and vaginal ultrasounds.
Requiring the consent of both parents.
Establishing erroneous developmental stages as the cut off for abortions (beating hear for example which is at about 6 weeks)
Requiring "waiting periods".
So the argument about Roe V. Wade from the left is not so much that it will be over turned directly, but rather that the legal precedent it set will slowly be erroded by allowing these TRAP laws to outlaw abortion clinics rather than abortions themselves.
if you admit you could be wrong it's not entirely a strawman. banning abortion is a a central pillar of the Republican agenda (agenda not implying anything bad, environmental regulations are a democratic agenda)
it is very likely it will come up, it often does, and the supreme court should hear the case as it's not something for lower courts to decide. considering the court as been voting on party lines, it's a very possible threat.
there is a decent chance it will be upheld, but theres also a very real chance it may be overturned. theres also a strong chance of it being upheld but severely weakened. in any scenario, it is nowhere near a strawman
Because Democrats argue against the overturn of Roe v Wade when the court will never even bring up Roe v Wade.
At least I don't think they will, I could be wrong.
how is that a strawman?
No, the roe v wade argument from Democrats is a strawman. I don't the supreme court will revisit that.