Skip Nav
What Happy Couples Do Every Day
Women's Health
Can Vaginal Glitter Bombs Make Sex "Magically Delicious" — and Are They Even Safe?
7 Reasons I Wish I Hadn't Taken My Husband's Last Name

Roe v. Wade. Will the Supreme Court Overturn It?

A recent Harris Interactive poll shows that support for the Roe v. Wade decision has reached its highest level in nine years. A majority now favors the decision, at 56 percent, a full 7 point increase from last year.

The fact that strikes me most from the study is this: a 69 percent to 24 percent majority of all adults do not think it is likely that this Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Abortion holds such a controversial spot in the political landscape, with some voting for candidates based on this issue alone. Since the Supreme Court is nominated by the President and is confirmed by the Senate, it seems like a hard prediction to make. What do you think?


Join The Conversation
mandy_frost mandy_frost 9 years
I'm late. Ah well. I'll put in my two cents anyhow. It is ridiculous that every time abortion is brought up only the life of the fetus is considered. The following things should be considered: 1) the life of the woman 2) the lifestyle of the woman after the fetus is born 3) the financial circumstances of the woman (It seems to me that many who are against abortion are also wealthier and against social programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. There are no welfare cases riding around in fancy cars. Further, sometimes, a woman can't go to a clinic, wait 24 hours, and go back. She has a job to do with mouths to feed already.) Religion should never ever be considered for the population as a whole. I personally choose not to have a religion and am SICK of people trying to shove their religious beliefs on me. I also think that a pharmacist should not be able to fail to dispense meds for "religious reasons." Don't be a pharmacist if you don't want to follow doctors' orders. (I'm on birth control to regulate my period, not to actually control birth, so I really despise any pharmacist who thinks they know what is best for me medically.) Anyhow, I said other. I don't think it will be, but restrictions will be more and more because the right is scared to death of losing a wedge issue. There is a tiny but loud component of people who are against abortion. If it were overturned, there would be an enormous group of people who all of a sudden have bringing back abortion rights as their number one issue. The right is probably (and if not, should be) scared of the ramifications of overturning.
trésjolie1 trésjolie1 9 years
I. Am. Too. Late. Dammit!
Let's hope not!
Princesskitty22 Princesskitty22 9 years
I don't think they'll overturn it.
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
Bethany, I completely understand what you are saying. But I feel that the interpretation of the Constitution and the fact that the Supreme Court overstepping its bounds AGAIN, is a very important subject and the Roe Vs. Wade decision stands for so much more then the right of choice. I think the riots are worth giving people the power back.
mymellowman mymellowman 9 years
I couldn't agree more Cine.
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
"I think any large metropolitan areas with liberal policies and social programs will see this more and more." I feel California and the Tri state area are great references on how socialistic policy creates a dangerous two tier class system.
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
"I think California will see an accelerating exodus of the stable, educated, tax-paying citizens and a continuing influx of the poor and unskilled--but that's another issue." Lainetm- I can not agree with this more. I lived in Cali for 6 years, and just recently moved back to New York. I can not imagine raising kids in California. As for not trusting the people to make the decisions. I would rather leave the power to the people, then give it to the federal government. People can evolved, the federal government, once it has the power, will not give it up. Something like Roe Vs. Wade, sets precedence for a powerful central government that scares the hell out of me.
mymellowman mymellowman 9 years
"I think California will see an accelerating exodus of the stable, educated, tax-paying citizens and a continuing influx of the poor and unskilled--but that's another issue." I lived in San Francisco for about 3 years and LA for about another two. I'm back on the east coast at the moment, in North Jersey, where I grew up, and it's the same thing here. I think any large metropolitan areas with liberal policies and social programs will see this more and more. My parents can barely afford to live in a house that what built by my grandfather, they're not in a rich town or country and neither of them are retired yet, but their taxes are killing them. Once my dad retires, they won't have much of a choice in whether to stay or go because they just plain won't be able to afford to stay. I find that very sad.
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 9 years
cabaker, I can see the legal argument for keeping it a state issue, I just don't trust the people who would therefore be making the decision. I understand your point about choosing a residence. I moved to Los Angeles as a young, single woman. Now I'm a middle-aged married mom; I've evolved, but the state has regressed (IMO). I'm entrenched and leaving is not feasible. My kids, though, both plan to leave the state permanently. I think California will see an accelerating exodus of the stable, educated, tax-paying citizens and a continuing influx of the poor and unskilled--but that's another issue.
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
I'm done with this topic! Slow news day!
chancleta chancleta 9 years
make it a state choice!
mymellowman mymellowman 9 years
"God people calm down I was just saying that, there isn't some big idea behind that statement." - There were any attacks here miss. You made s statement about how the Constitution is brought up whenever politics is involved, so there were explanations as to why.
bethany21 bethany21 9 years
Cine- As I mentioned in my initial post, I am very conflicted with this topic. I don't think it should have been a federal issue in the first place, but I do agree with the ruling reached. I am not denying that it's a very selfish stance to take, but I'd rather it be left alone for that reason. Also, I have lived in the south my whole life, and it is not uncommon to see pro-life protesters once in a while, chanting and holding up signs and photos of fetuses (Feti? Who knows Latin?) at busy intersections. They hold up traffic, both pro-choice and apathetic passerby holler at them, and it's just generally an unpleasant affair that accomplishes little, if anything. Can you imagine the craziness if Roe v. Wade were overturned and the decision went to the states after decades of being upheld? There would be riots in the streets! It would be madness! Okay, maybe that's a little dramatic, but still. It's a done deal, and despite some people speaking out against it (ahem, Huckabee, your preacher, and probably your grandmother) no one has yet to do anything about overturning it. It is not the biggest crisis our nation is facing, so let's just leave it on the back burner until we've stabilized a democracy in Iraq, brought our soldiers home safely, and maybe made it through this impending recession. Longest comment ever! I'm off to get lunch.
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
Lain - I'm torn, part of me thinks it should be a federal issue for the reasons you stated. However, I can see how legally it should be a state issue. Honestly as I've gotten older I've come to embrace the idea of "voting with my dollar". Its part of the reason that while I love New England, I could never live there again because the values and politics are so far from my own. I understand that that would create a completely divided country, but then again if you look at the map of votes after the last election, it seems like we may have that already.
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 9 years
Admittedly, I can't cite legal theory to support why I believe this should be a Federal issue. However, as a Californian, I see daily how state legislatures are subject to whims and do not always think through the effects of their decisions. I think it would be punitive for residents of one state to have such a fundamental right / privilege and others to be deprived of it. To specify: I am not "pro abortion", I just don't feel we should have wildly different laws governing it from state to state. I can't think of any other example, except perhaps a state choosing to raise the voting age to 21 instead of 18. It is a fundamental issue affecting all other aspect's of the individual's life. I should not be denied the option just because I live in a particular part of the country--because it is all one country.
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
Cadet - Never heard of Unicef?
Cadet Cadet 9 years
I wish that children who are already born all over the world and suffering would get half as much attention as aborted fetuses. No one's fighting for their rights. I guess it's easy to ignore when it isn't your problem.
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
M3 - I completely agree with you about birth control and responsibility. I often wonder how the invention of a male birth control pill will affect this debate.
ktownpolarbear ktownpolarbear 9 years
i really hope it won't be overturned. but considering how our current president has basically taken our nation backwards the last eight years, i wouldn't be surprised if they do attempt it.
nyaradzom2001 nyaradzom2001 9 years
God people calm down I was just saying that, there isn't some big idea behind that statement.
mymellowman mymellowman 9 years
"I said that we have a case law system because the Constitution does not, and cannot, hold all the answers." - (I'm going to contradict myself here to make a point). One of the biggest reasons the Constitution DOES NOT hold all of the answer is because any powers not regulated to the federal government and supposed to lie with the state. Here is my contradiction: This means that the answer IS within the Constitution because if it is not addressed there the Constitution is saying it is for the State to handle. Additionally, when you advocate case law in reinterpreting what is written instead of having the document/law re-written to meet the needs/wants of the people, you are advocating that the Constitution be ignored, whether or not that is your direct intent. It is not the a power of or the responsibility of a judge to make a judgment when it is not written within the document.
mymellowman mymellowman 9 years
You're crazy Cine, you're much more defined in your responses, which I believe are much stronger than mine. I am just a little more sarcastic.
MarinerMandy MarinerMandy 9 years
I found it. Thomas Jefferson said, "Let us provide in our Constitution for its revision. . . every 19 or 20 years. . . so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation." Okay, slightly different from my paraprase... Also, I NEVER said the Constitution should be ignored. I said that we have a case law system because the Constitution does not, and cannot, hold all the answers.
mymellowman mymellowman 9 years
"There needs to be the ability to choose somewhere in this mess of what we call reproductive rights." - There is this already: It means being responsible and choosing whether or not to have sex and, if you choose to (and I am by no means an abstinent person) it means being responsible in choosing safe methods to not get pregnant. Women, as do men, have a choice well before it gets to the point of pregnancy, and the government isn't telling anyone they can't have sex. It's sad that people have moved so far away from taking any sort of responsibility for their actions anymore.
Secrets From Congress
Prince Philip Over the Years
JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case Information
What It's Like to Be the Child of an Undocumented Immigrant
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds