Posted on 11/08/2007 3:06:38 PM PST by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A leading pro-abortion law firm has released a new report saying thirty states are likely to ban most or all abortions if the Supreme Court reverses the Roe v. Wade decision. The firm also conducted a poll finding many Americans are unaware of pro-life efforts to get abortion bans in place for when the high court overturns the case.
The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights says Roe is under attack like never before with pro-life activists using new strategies at both the state and federal level.
It's most recent version of its report "What if Roe Fell?" finds that pro-life groups are advocating both immediate bans on abortion as well as trigger laws that would make abortions illegal if Roe is reversed.
"Across the country, a dangerous, but largely undetected movement is laying the foundation for a post-Roe world in which abortion would once again be a crime," Nancy Northup, president of the Center, said in a statement LifeNews.com received.
The center says seventeen states have introduced 38 abortion bans or trigger laws in the last three years.
Four states, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota have introduced abortion bans and South Dakota's legislature was the only one to approve it (though voters there narrowly rejected the measure afterwards).
The pro-abortion law firm also reported that more than two dozen states would likely ban abortion or have trigger laws immediately going into effect after a potential Supreme Court decision overturning the major abortion case.
It lists 21 states as most likely to ban abortions in that instance: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
It classifies another 9 states as somewhat likely: Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.
Meanwhile, the abortion advocacy group hired Lake Research Partners to do a survey about Roe issues.
According to the polling data, 63 percent of Americans believe that Roe v. Wade is increasingly vulnerable under the current Supreme Court.
Another 60 percent are largely unaware of legislative efforts underway at the state level to ban abortion or put trigger laws in place. And about 58 percent of those polled are not aware of the current laws on abortion in their home state.
The survey reached 1,000 registered voters nationwide and it had a 2.7 percent margin of error.
And the other 20 states would be busy doing the abortions. Not a good solution, though better than what we have now
A thirty state ban would only help the Greyhound Bus Company.
If this were to happen the "buffer zones" for abortion mill entrances in my state would increase to about a mile and a half.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I’dlove to see a constitutional amensment, but this would certainly be a great start.
Looks like a partial list of states the abortionist Giuliani would lose should he wrangle the nomination. Add the rest of the blue states and you have a landslide for Hillary. Puke!
If Rooty Toot makes a “good” showing, he would lose as badly as Carter did in 1980 or Goldwater in 1964, the more likely scenario is that he would lose join the likes of McGovern and Mondale and be humiliated in a landslide.
And if she's too poor I'm sure liberals would try to subsidize abortion buses.
So, we are [insert expletive here] "zealots" because we don't think that 3500 American children should be murdered EVERY DAY?
Would you define YOURSELF as a "zealous" or just a passive supporter of infanticide?
I;m zealous. You misread my post.
But...but...this can’t be. We’re supposed to go for a hail-mary constitutional amendment and be purer than Ivory Soap. < /S >
Not if states that ban abortions forbid out-of-staters from coming there.
I apologize.
Fewer than 10 would completely ban abortion. 10-30 would have various levels of restrictions, and the balance would leave the bloody system as is.
Abortion stops a baby's beating heart.
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Thanks for ping.
Returning the matter to voters from the usurpation of the courts is the right move. It would be up to the Churches, etc. to convince voters that abortion is wrong at the State level. [like gambling and alcohol]
“All 50 states would be better, but 30 would be a great start!”
Yes, it is a start, but it’s unbelievable that our laws allow even one baby to be killed, let alone over 48 million.
But we will do all we can to save as many as possible, of course.
I’d rather see this, but we need more strong pro-lifers in Congress to get it passed:
Year after year, Duncan Hunter has tried to get legislation passed with the bill he authored, the personhood-at-conception bill that has over 100 co-sponsors, which would define personhood as moment of conception, so, it would allow us to have a reversal of the effects of Roe v. Wade without a constitutional amendment.
Our work won't be done until ALL of the innocents are saved, but if we can save some, we must seize the opportunity.
Someone should research how much money liberal celebrities have donated to pro-abortion candidates since the 1970s. They could probably feed a Third World country and give every unemployed female a vacation home with what they have spent promoting abortion.
We just can't let people think that it’s the end goal.
Lot of blue states in that list.
I understand your point, but it's just not so. People who have been doing sidewalk-counseling for years say that the word most accurately describing most abortion-bound women is not "determination," but "ambivalence." In fact, ambivalence is so common in newly-pregnant women that it's practically a symptom of pregnancy.
This being the case, any delay, even of a day, will turn a lot of women around (which is why abortion lobbyists fight like hell against a legislated one-day waiting period).
Women who can't take off "on the Greyhound" because of family, school, or work responsibilities, will often find, once the initial inner turmoil of pregnancy has settled down, that they can actually accept the baby and plan for childbirth accordingly. If there's a prolife pregnancy center on this side of the State Line and an abortion clinic on the other, they'll often end up at the prolife center.
Every restriction on abortion saves lives. This is a truth learned by long experience.
Here’s a novel idea. Why not just show all the voters what an abortion looks like?
L’Chaim!
“if we can save some, we must seize the opportunity.”
I agree.
Don’t believe it. As they point out, only 4 states have tried, only one passed it, and that was rejected.
So now, when there’s no downside to the vote, nobody is voting for it. How are you going to get anybody to vote for it when the pro-abortion groups will be highly motivated to stop it?
This is just a pro-abortion group trying to scare pro-abortionists into voting democrat next election, or else pro-abortion republicans to vote for Rudy in the hopes he’s lying about his court picks.
I am sure that law would stand for a day or two before it was struck down by a court.
bookmarked
I’m really surprised that Wyoming isn’t on that list. The last I’d heard, Wyoming was firmly entrenched in the GOP camp.
Interesting list there. Midwest and South mostly. Some, heavily Catholic and Southern Baptist in my guesstamation.
Here are the states that are not on either list. Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Some states I'm not surprised to see on this list (sadly enough), but I'm kind of surprised to see Wyoming, Montana, Tennessee, West Virginia, and possibly even Alaska and Florida on it.
I don't understand what you are saying. I thought the other poster was suggesting that pregnant women who wanted abortions but lived in states where they are banned would go to states where they are available.
You seem to be saying that women from other states would be prohibited from entering states with abortion bans. I don't get the purpose ... can you clarify?
I guess that would be better than the present situation. Here’s the problem. It would be illegal in some states, but the personhood of the unborn child would still not be recognized nationwide. In some states the unborn child would be worthy of life, but in other states, the unborn child would be a “blob of tissue” able to be discarded at will as medical waste. Likely the unborn children who are victims of rape, incest, or some illness/deformity would still not be protected in states with abortion bans. The goal of this nation is to secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all people from sea to shining sea. Our nation would say the unborn are worthy of life in some states based on certain circumstances but not worthy of life in others. It doesn’t matter if the unborn child is concieved mutually, in rape, incest, or with illness/deformity. What matters is that the unborn child is an innocent person and therefore worthy of the right to life in this country. That is why I will fight for Duncan Hunter with everything I have. His Life At Conception Act would end abortion with an act of Congress and a President’s signature by recognizing the personhood of the unborn child from conception.
I ask anyone here who is looking for the best pro-life candidate, to join with me in supporting Duncan Hunter in 2008. The unborn children saved will certainly thank you.
You’ll probably see AK, TN, WY come on that list. But not WV because it is normally a KKK Byrdbrain state. FL is about lefty as it can get in most places because of the eastern liberals who have moved down there for the sun. They hate the south, but do not consider FL the south, rather northern communist Cuba. Where naturally they are at home with socialism.
Were this to happen, I can see Katie Couric now interviewing a “poor” person who has to travel to another state at considerable expense to procure her “needed” abortion. Katie will then tell the sheeple how “unfair” that is.
Actually, didn't we see the counter-example to that in Massachusetts "gay marriages" (thanks, Mitt! </sarc>) -- at least one of the couple had to be a MA resident.
actually the LEGAL arugumnt goes like, “so reversing Roe vs. Wade would NOT make abortion illegal. Reversal of that opinion would ONLY put it back on individual states to decide.”
Kind of kills their legal boogey man.
How many states do or do not do a particular act is irrelevant.
simple, clean and elegant.
“A thirty state ban would only help the Greyhound Bus Company.”
NO, I don’t think it would. It might be a great start that could pick up steam over a period of years as the CCW has done.
I, too, will fight for Duncan Hunter. He has the strongest commitment of all the presidential candidates for the life issue.
Hunter and Brownback were the only ones to attend the pro-life march in D.C., and Brownback has dropped out.
Hunter will be on Glenn Beck’s show tonight, and I hope that gives him a boost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
