Unfortunately you're wrong. Nobody knows what they're legally allowed to do until the supreme court takes a look at one of these laws. O'Connor is no longer on the court. All they need is five justices who are willing to push back the date to x number of weeks. They're throwing darts at the wall to see what sticks.

The problem with a state by state solution is that abortion would be essentially illegal in 20+ states if that were the case. And not everybody can afford to drive to another state.

It's the way it became "law." It wasn't chosen by the people, through their elected representatives. It was forced on the people. If the damn Supreme Court hadn't found "penumbras" and the hard work of influencing public opinion had been done to build a consensus, then legal abortion would have more widespread legitimacy.

Abgemacht,

I wasn't twisting your words at all. You said something you don't really believe in order to change focus from an uncomfortable topic to one you'd much rather discuss. Such words don't have to be twisted in order to lead to absurd conclusions.

Also, Draug asked for "Clinic violence," which is what you initially claimed. The guy in Kansas was killed at his church. He would have been safer at work most likely.

Well, like I said, I don't see it as a human right. If you get knocked up, you get to deal with the consequences. And don't discount the existence of non-profits who would help poor women with the travel. Not everything has to be done by the government--indeed it's usually better when it's not.

@semck

No, I believe what I said. What happened in your OP was terrible, inexcusable and should never happen again.

However, I truly believe that when a topic can't be discussed (even here) without a major fight and people cannot do their job without being killed (even if it is at church) than it is not surprising when focus is taken away from actual regulation and things like this slip by.

and my point is that it wouldn't have happened if we had tried a legislative solution. For those of us who wanted legal abortion in all fifty states, the supreme court was the only option. There is too much opposition in this country to try a legislative solution. Just look at Healthcare reform. It was tried through the legislature and only happened because the democrats got a filibuster proof majority in the senate. You wouldn't get a single republican vote for abortion rights. And you'd have more than enough for a filibuster. And even if the democrats had enough votes to pass it totally on their own, you'd get the same reaction if it was only passed by one political party as you did having a supreme court ruling. And the democrats would lose massive votes and not be in the majority again for a decade.

OK abge, sorry to impugn your sincerity.

I'm glad you at least find the slaughter of infants inexcusable.

@Abge I don't understand your point. Are you saying that abortion regulation is too difficult to be attempted because people disagree on it too much, or just expressing frustration with the degree of disagreement that exists over abortion rights in this country?

Data, if banning abortion is constitutional, then federally requiring it to be legal would be clearly unconstitutional.

Another reason to focus on the state level.

Federal law trumps state law. The problem is you could never pass a constitutional amendment allowing abortion to be regulated at the federal level. I was illustrating the point that it can't be done through federal policy to explain why it had to go through the supreme court.

I don't follow on why an amendment is necessary.

datapolitical,

You're right that it couldn't be done legislatively at the federal level without a Constitutional amendment that could never have passed. You're wrong that the answer was therefore to give up bothering with Democratic legitimacy and abuse the institution of the Supreme Court to force a position on a country that would never have ratified the amendment.

If you accept the premise that I want abortion to be legal in all fifty states, I don't see how I get there without the supreme court.

Dipplayer,

I'm not sure whom you're addressing, but anyway -- without an amendment, and without a decision that abortion was a constitutional right, the federal government would not have had the authority to pass a law requiring states to allow abortions. The reason is it doesn't even come close to falling under an enumerated power.

The only two that are broad enough to even consider are the tax and spend clause -- but that's only broad with respect to spending and taxing, not with respect to telling states what to do; and the commerce clause. But the commerce clause is not sufficiently broad to allow the feds to direct a state's police power, i.e. by interfering with its criminal law.

For the same reason right now, the feds could decriminalize drugs at the federal level, but they will never have the ability to force any state to legalize them at the state level.

"If you accept the premise that I want abortion to be legal in all fifty states, I don't see how I get there without the supreme court."

You might conclude that, even though you want something, the rupture to the political process and the health of the polity was not worth using illegitimate means to get it.

Not a very fashionable point of view anymore, unfortunately, but things were better when it was.

Okay, that makes sense. In this day and age, it's easy to forget that the Feds are limited. :-P

Your defense of your second statement fails quitr simply because it doesn't fit your statement. You said shot and.killed on their way to work. The 2009 killing was in a church not on the docs way to work. Fail.

I really am going to bed, but since semck has rejoined, I'd like to add a little more rigor to my argument.

Moving past the obvious atrocity, here is why I believe it was able to happen:

1) Average doctors (an all healthcare professionals) have been systematically removed from abortion clinics.

1a) Through violence and fear (either perceived or real) an average doctor who many normally enter this field now longer has enough motivation to risk his life (or feel he may be).

1b) Thus who remain in the field, do so for a more powerful reason.

1bi) One would hope, and I assume it to be true, that most people remain in the field because they have a compulsion to help women with unwanted pregnancies and they truly believe they are doing the right thing and are the only ones who can help

1bii) I would expect, however, that there are some who remain in the field for wickeder reasons. Either some odd type of war profiteering or, in this case, some criminally insane desire to kill infants.

The problem here is two-fold. First, there are simply fewer people to chose from then there should be, so it's simply more likely that a sociopath may sneak through. Secondly, the good doctors may be so busy trying to keep the clinics running, they may not notice or, perhaps, involuntarily turn a blind eye towards the darker aspects of the clinic.

2) Constant attempts to shut down clinics prevent proper legislation.

2a) There are many states (North Dakota is the most recent) that attempt to pass laws that are aimed at shutting down clinics.

2ai) This takes time away from laws that could actually regulate clinics


Not only do these laws perpetuate number 1, they create this hostile environment that causes clinics to not self-regulate as well as they should, fearing an us vs them mentality.

And a quick note. Federal law trumpjng state law is a limited exercise. States' rights still exist and Federal law is restricted to what the feds are explicitely given or atates explicit denied in the constitution. Arguably, the right to.life is paramount and it could be argued a state is protecting that right and supersedes any contrary federal law.

Now that is the argument I expect and count on from you abge. Well reasoned and thought out not knee jerk sensationalism and exaggeration.