No. I am not talking about an amendment. I am talking about a case going to the supreme court where the justices decide to make it a big case and make it about overturning Roe vs. Wade. You do NOT need a constitutional amendment to do that. The court has that power at any time.

To repeat this very basic concept of the American government system: Roe vs. Wade was a supreme court decision. It was not constitutional amendment. Because it was only a supreme court decision the supreme court has total power to overturn it at any time when ruling on ANY case that is about abortion. It most certainly does not need to be a ruling about a piece of federal legislation.The actual case could indeed start much, much smaller. Now IF it was a constitutional amendment which it is not, that WOULD require a constitutional amendment to overturn it.

The obvious implication here is that pro choice people are being paranoid or making up an imaginary threat that is represented by Romney-Ryan and their radical right wing anti-choice agenda. That is simply not the truth. The threat is as bona fide and possible as it gets.

JT:

The Supreme Court must rule on legislation only. They cannot simply decide to rehash an old case and see if they can come up with a differing opinion. The Roe v. Wade decision has been made and the only way it can be contested is by ruling on the same subject matter with NEW legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President.

The only way Roe v. Wade can be overturned is if Congress passes new legislation making any or all abortions illegal and the bill is signed into law by the President. That is when the ACLU and thousands of constitutional lawyers will attack the legislation by bringing suit in federal court. The suit/s will then make their way through the appeal process until it finally reaches the Supreme Court, which must then decide whether they even want to hear the cases. If they were to decide to hear these mythical abortion appeals, they could then decide if the NEW law was unconstitutional or not.

In any event ANY action to overturn a previous Supreme Court decision starts in Congress. End of story.

Just a game to detract attention from the anti-woman policies of Romney-Ryan. Now they are trying to fool moderate women when they are reasonable but they are not. They don't support equal pay laws and they favor making abortion illegal. They know they have the right wing women and they know the right wing women know the games they are playing are just a show to trick the moderate women. Romnesian.

Do the left wing women know the Obama White House pays men 18% more per annum than women?

IMO the real war on women is the way Obama and his team try to vicitmize them and the fact that his admin does not pay his female staff the same as his male employees

For the same position, same qualifications, and experience? I'd like to see proof of that because I do not believe it.

I just LOVE IT when liberals start adopting common sense arguments from the conservatives when it is one of their own violating the rights of some minority group.

Surely you have a link for this damaging political revelation?

Wait...not Fox News....even I know better than that.

How about this one? NFN.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama's record on paying women White House aides not stellar

By Susan Crabtree - The Washington Times October 17, 2012, 11:14AM

...from the article...

"But President Obama's own record on closing the gender pay gap is less than stellar. Using late 2011 figures, the latest available at the time, The Washington Times earlier this year surveyed 121 White House employees who were paid at least $100,000 and found that 47 were women and 74 were men. That is only slightly better than in 2003, the third year of the Bush administration, when 39 of the top 121 employees were women.

When all White House employees are considered, the Obama administration's record dims a bit further. Female employees earn a median salary of $60,000, roughly 18 percent less than men, whose median salary is $71,000."

Read more: Obama's record on paying women White House aides not stellar - Washington Times

http://www.washingto...d-hiring-women/

...

The only way Roe v. Wade can be overturned is if Congress passes new legislation making any or all abortions illegal and the bill is signed into law by the President.

I read your post. I think you are completely wrong. You think you are right. Agree to disagree. We have no basis for any continued discussion due to this completely different read of the laws our nation.

http://wiki.answers....ade_be_reversed

http://wiki.answers....urn_Roe_v._Wade

Romney understands. Overturning Roe v Wade is up to the court:

“Well, I don’t actually make the decision the Supreme Court makes and so they’ll have to make their own decision,” he said about Roe. “Well, I don’t actually make the decision the Supreme Court makes and so they’ll have to make their own decision,” he said about Roe. “And it would be my preference that they reverse Roe V. Wade and therefore they return to the people and their elected representatives the decisions with regards to this important issue. And I hope to appoint justices for the Supreme Court that will follow the law and the constitution.”

http://www.lifenews....ortion-funding/

A CASE could come from a STATE:

As states continue to lay the groundwork for challenging and ultimately reversing Roe, the CRR, the American Civil Liberties Union and other reproductive rights advocates are gearing up for many more court battles in 2012.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1216869.html

The supreme court accepts CASES. CASES that they choose to accept.

Even though this link is about gay civil rights, it sheds light on the variety of CASES that the supreme court may accept and also discusses the issue with overturning previous supreme court decisions. I think anyone who reads it will realize that they can accept many different kinds of CASES that may potentially impact on previous decisions.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2012/10/the_supreme_court_s_terrible_decision_in_bowers_v_hardwick_was_a_product.html

What must happen before Roe v. Wade can be overturned is this.

1. Both Houses of Congress must pass a law making abortions illegal except in certain circumstances. The Senate would likely require cloture to be used which requires the 60 vote minimum.

2, The bill must then be signed by President Romney.

3, Some individual, state or eligible entity must then challenge the law in Federal Court as being unconsituttional where it must wind it's way through the federal court system, eventually landing on the desks of SCOTUS.

I seriously doubt all this could be accomplished in Romney's lifetime, so why worry about it?

Wouldn't an politically easier path to be have a State or Municipality pass legislation outlawing abortion, let lower courts strike down the law, and then have the Supreme Court take up an appeal?

What must happen before Roe v. Wade can be overturned is this.

1. Both Houses of Congress must pass a law making abortions illegal except in certain circumstances. The Senate would likely require cloture to be used which requires the 60 vote minimum.

2, The bill must then be signed by President Romney.

3, Some individual, state or eligible entity must then challenge the law in Federal Court as being unconsituttional where it must wind it's way through the federal court system, eventually landing on the desks of SCOTUS.

I seriously doubt all this could be accomplished in Romney's lifetime, so why worry about it?

Of course. It ain't going to happen. The whole "War on Women" thing is nothing but another dishonest political tactic.

It's as real as the War on Christmas.

IMO the real war on women is the way Obama and his team try to vicitmize them and the fact that his admin does not pay his female staff the same as his male employees

For the same position, same qualifications, and experience? I'd like to see proof of that because I do not believe it.

Re: "same position, same qualifications, and experience", that's an age old ruse. To stay clean by that criteria all you have to do is not promote females.

IMO the real war on women is the way Obama and his team try to vicitmize them and the fact that his admin does not pay his female staff the same as his male employees

For the same position, same qualifications, and experience? I'd like to see proof of that because I do not believe it.

I just LOVE IT when liberals start adopting common sense arguments from the conservatives when it is one of their own violating the rights of some minority group.

Surely you have a link for this damaging political revelation?

Wait...not Fox News....even I know better than that.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/19/politics/romney-obama-women-hiring/index.html?iref=allsearch

[repeated post]

Roe v Wade is a contentious issue but it's not up to congress or the president directly to alter it. I agree with Jingthing that it could be altered by the same entity that instated it, namely; The Supreme Court. If they chose to rule on a case which dealt with that issue, and ruled that abortion was unusually cruel and/or illegal, POW!, Roe v Wade would become moot. There would be an uproar, for sure, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. R and R are in favor of banning abortion. Romney has altered his stance for political/image reasons, because he knows that most US voters are in favor of women having choices in such matters. But down deep, he's solidly anti-abortion, and that will be a litmus test if he were to fill vacant justice seats.

Republicans are famous for switching alliances, once they're in office. Reagan campaigned on 'no new taxes' pledge, yet increased taxes 11 times in his 8 years as prez, plus he blew the budget deficit to stratospheric heights. Bush Sr. famously declared 'Read My Lips, No New Taxes.' yet he too increased taxes. Romney, when preaching to his cohorts, likes to compare himself to Reagan. I hope he's wrong, as Reagan actively broke the law when he gave the nod to channeling weapons to the Contras, in direct contravention of Congress' express dictates.

Roe v Wade is not just an issue for US women. It can affect anyone. Anyone who has a daughter, a sister or is close to any female between the ages of 15 and 45. Rich folks like Romney or Ryan can deal privately (hush hush) with an unwanted pregnancy in their families. Poor folks and others without car elevators might have a lot tougher time of it. The hispanic 16 year old girl who gets date-raped, doesn't want some rich white men in ivory towers telling her what she can and cannot do with her body - or that she (and/or her parents or doctor) will get tossed in jail if they don't do exactly what those men decree. A clean professional clinic with affordable care is better than a back-alley job, wouldn't you agree?

and what about needle exchange for druggies? They're probably going to do drugs anyway, so at least let them use sterilized needles - so as to lessen the danger of acquiring HIV. R and R are probably completely opposed to giving a break to such (in their view) low-lifes. Romney says he doesn't know what hemp is, except he agrees it should continue to be criminalized. If he knew what hemp was, he might realize what a boon it would be for US farmers, to be able to grow it, as farmers do in Canada, China, most of Europe, and many other countries ww.

Yes and also the supreme court pick issue is much bigger than just Roe v. Wade. Look what happened under the current court. Citizens United, that horror show of corporate political power. Bush vs. Gore where the right wing court gifted the presidency to Bush. If Gore had won ... no Iraq war, yes I believe that.

(Even more dramatically, there is a good chance there would have been no 9-11 under Gore. As many forget there were loud and clear calls of WARNING about the upcoming attack and Bush totally ignored them. To assume Gore would have also ignored them is insulting to Gore. 9-11 changed America dramatically -- for the worse big time. Imagine if it could have been blocked.)

Coming up, same sex marriage case(s) which seem likely to happen under the current court, which could mean a decades long setback for gay civil rights. For impact on Americans lives that last decades in the future, the supreme court is much more consequential than the current president, yet presidents do influence future courts.

The president of the good ol' US of A is very important to the people of the world, they may not care but that does take away from the fact. The president can and has effected change in the world which can be a good thing.... but it can also be a bad thing. I don't see that Romnesia offers anything of benefit economy wise other than using a cradit card to pay off a credit card.

It would no doubt give the world's economies a serious boost but it would also likely bust the USA which would both effect change. I don't see on either camp a change which I think would be positive therefore keep pottering along until we find a way forward that has a good chance of success. More so the western world, it's on a knife edge and at some stage it was always going to happen so let us just heal our wounds and manage our debt until we know what to do. If Romney does what he says (lol) it will just push the problem down the line and chances are we will not be in as good a position as we are now. Less options in five years time.

Romany is just going to rape and pillage guys. He and his family have been at it longer than I have been alive and they are not going to stop.

Another reason not to vote Romney is...

How can you tell if someone is a pathological liar?

Pathological liars - or "mythomaniacs" - may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. The following comments basically reflect a pathological liar who has the characteristics of histrionic personality disorder.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_tell_if_someone_is_a_pathological_liar

But even all that is not the reason I would not vote Romney. The reason I would not vote for him is because he is insane. I don't care how bad the other choice is because I would never put my mark against anyone I know to be insane.

Romney gives no good reason to inspire any trust at all. I still think the American people will come to their senses and reelect Obama. Not perfect but Romney is scary.

Yes and also the supreme court pick issue is much bigger than just Roe v. Wade. Look what happened under the current court. Citizens United, that horror show of corporate political power. Bush vs. Gore where the right wing court gifted the presidency to Bush. If Gore had won ... no Iraq war, yes I believe that.

The current court was not responsible for Bush vs. Gore. Four of the current justices weren't around back then. You also conveniently left out that the actual current court upheld your precious Obamacare and that only happened because the right-leaning, Bush-appointed Chief Justice sided with it.

Yes and also the supreme court pick issue is much bigger than just Roe v. Wade. Look what happened under the current court. Citizens United, that horror show of corporate political power. Bush vs. Gore where the right wing court gifted the presidency to Bush. If Gore had won ... no Iraq war, yes I believe that.

The current court was not responsible for Bush vs. Gore. Four of the current justices weren't around back then. You also conveniently left out that the actual current court upheld your precious Obamacare and that only happened because the right-leaning, Bush-appointed Chief Justice sided with it.

You're right of course, the court in 2000 and 2012 are not the same.

Actually the Obamacare decision was very mixed. They ruled it constitutional which was good, but they allowed states to not cooperate with expanded Medicaid which basically deeply degrades a core goal of the bill -- to cover both the VERY poor and the not so poor who can't afford health insurance.

Also, it is not my precious Obamacare. I'm for single payer, always have been, always will be. (No Romnesia there.)

Can you explain what 'single payer' means to those of us who don't live in the US please?

Even more dramatically, there is a good chance there would have been no 9-11 under Gore.

Do you really believe this nonsense? No one else does.

But even all that is not the reason I would not vote Romney. The reason I would not vote for him is because he is insane.

What a compelling argument.

Another reason not to vote Romney is...

How can you tell if someone is a pathological liar?

Pathological liars - or "mythomaniacs" - may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. The following comments basically reflect a pathological liar who has the characteristics of histrionic personality disorder.

Whoa, take a deep breath, go out and do some knee bends. I see Thaksin and his lawyers as P. liars, but not Romney. I see Romney and Ryan as slick car salesmen. They'll tell you what you want to hear, while grinning and bobbing their eyebrows, signaling for you to think; "yes, yes, I'll buy this car!" even though a muffled little part of your brain is saying, "wait, think it over. Kick the tires. Take it for a spin. Ask about its history."

Another reason not to vote Romney is...

How can you tell if someone is a pathological liar?

Pathological liars - or "mythomaniacs" - may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. The following comments basically reflect a pathological liar who has the characteristics of histrionic personality disorder.

Whoa, take a deep breath, go out and do some knee bends. I see Thaksin and his lawyers as P. liars, but not Romney. I see Romney and Ryan as slick car salesmen. They'll tell you what you want to hear, while grinning and bobbing their eyebrows, signaling for you to think; "yes, yes, I'll buy this car!" even though a muffled little part of your brain is saying, "wait, think it over. Kick the tires. Take it for a spin. Ask about its history."

Did your used car theory of..."Ask about its history"...convince you to support Obama?

Some psychiatrists have declared Obama has all the signs of having NPD...Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

http://voices.yahoo....ic-2303793.html

http://www.globalpol...obama-elections

...and this one so you can draw your own conclusions:

http://www.nationalr...-jonah-goldberg

and what about needle exchange for druggies? They're probably going to do drugs anyway, so at least let them use sterilized needles - so as to lessen the danger of acquiring HIV. R and R are probably completely opposed to giving a break to such (in their view) low-lifes. Romney says he doesn't know what hemp is, except he agrees it should continue to be criminalized. If he knew what hemp was, he might realize what a boon it would be for US farmers, to be able to grow it, as farmers do in Canada, China, most of Europe, and many other countries ww.

For that matter, what is Obama's position on "needle exchange for druggies". I haven't heard either candidate address that issue. And while it's been well publicized that Obama was a big pot smoker back in his school days, I haven;t seen much progress toward legalizing weed over the past 4 years.

and what about needle exchange for druggies? They're probably going to do drugs anyway, so at least let them use sterilized needles - so as to lessen the danger of acquiring HIV. R and R are probably completely opposed to giving a break to such (in their view) low-lifes. Romney says he doesn't know what hemp is, except he agrees it should continue to be criminalized. If he knew what hemp was, he might realize what a boon it would be for US farmers, to be able to grow it, as farmers do in Canada, China, most of Europe, and many other countries ww.

For that matter, what is Obama's position on "needle exchange for druggies". I haven't heard either candidate address that issue. And while it's been well publicized that Obama was a big pot smoker back in his school days, I haven;t seen much progress toward legalizing weed over the past 4 years.

Maidu nails it down with this statement about Romney/Ryan...

" They're probably going to do drugs anyway, so at least let them use sterilized needles - so as to lessen the danger of acquiring HIV. R and R are probably completely opposed to giving a break to such (in their view) low-lifes."

This was such a statement of fact that it required two "probably's".

and what about needle exchange for druggies? They're probably going to do drugs anyway, so at least let them use sterilized needles - so as to lessen the danger of acquiring HIV. R and R are probably completely opposed to giving a break to such (in their view) low-lifes. Romney says he doesn't know what hemp is, except he agrees it should continue to be criminalized. If he knew what hemp was, he might realize what a boon it would be for US farmers, to be able to grow it, as farmers do in Canada, China, most of Europe, and many other countries ww.

For that matter, what is Obama's position on "needle exchange for druggies". I haven't heard either candidate address that issue. And while it's been well publicized that Obama was a big pot smoker back in his school days, I haven;t seen much progress toward legalizing weed over the past 4 years.

Maidu nails it down with this statement about Romney/Ryan...

" They're probably going to do drugs anyway, so at least let them use sterilized needles - so as to lessen the danger of acquiring HIV. R and R are probably completely opposed to giving a break to such (in their view) low-lifes."

This was such a statement of fact that it required two "probably's".

But is that issue in play in this election? I haven't noticed Obama pushing for needle exchanges.

and what about needle exchange for druggies? They're probably going to do drugs anyway, so at least let them use sterilized needles - so as to lessen the danger of acquiring HIV. R and R are probably completely opposed to giving a break to such (in their view) low-lifes. Romney says he doesn't know what hemp is, except he agrees it should continue to be criminalized. If he knew what hemp was, he might realize what a boon it would be for US farmers, to be able to grow it, as farmers do in Canada, China, most of Europe, and many other countries ww.

For that matter, what is Obama's position on "needle exchange for druggies". I haven't heard either candidate address that issue. And while it's been well publicized that Obama was a big pot smoker back in his school days, I haven;t seen much progress toward legalizing weed over the past 4 years.

Maidu nails it down with this statement about Romney/Ryan...

" They're probably going to do drugs anyway, so at least let them use sterilized needles - so as to lessen the danger of acquiring HIV. R and R are probably completely opposed to giving a break to such (in their view) low-lifes."

This was such a statement of fact that it required two "probably's".

But is that issue in play in this election? I haven't noticed Obama pushing for needle exchanges.

No, it isn't. This is merely another distraction from the real issues in this election.

Can you explain what 'single payer' means to those of us who don't live in the US please?

Universal health care. Socialized medicine. National health. Emphasis on long term health outcomes. Not for profit health care. Nationalized health care. Health insurance companies kicked out of the game. Big pharma put on a leash by aggressively negotiating what the national program will pay, as does Canada.

BTW, the record is clear that Obama was openly for single payer during his first campaign. However when he actually started his drive to reform health care access, even the DISCUSSION of that most sensible solution which was also supported by the American Medical Association was taken off the table. It was a political/lobbying/economic decision. The powers that be concluded they couldn't get anything at all passed without throwing more money at the health insurance lobby (Obamacare greatly expands their customer base), big pharma, and the big corpses corporations that own hospitals, etc.

Can you explain what 'single payer' means to those of us who don't live in the US please?

Universal health care. Socialized medicine. National health. Emphasis on long term health outcomes. Not for profit health care. Nationalized health care. Health insurance companies kicked out of the game. Big pharma put on a leash by aggressively negotiating what the national program will pay, as does Canada.

Sorry but that doesn't answer my question. Why is it called 'single payer'?

Can you explain what 'single payer' means to those of us who don't live in the US please?

Universal health care. Socialized medicine. National health. Emphasis on long term health outcomes. Not for profit health care. Nationalized health care. Health insurance companies kicked out of the game. Big pharma put on a leash by aggressively negotiating what the national program will pay, as does Canada.

Sorry but that doesn't answer my question. Why is it called 'single payer'?

The government is the single payer for health care entities as opposed to for profit insurance companies or retail customers. It's just another way of saying nationalized medicine. In truth, universal health care is probably used more than single payer. They mean the same thing. The intention is to avoid saying things that excite American socialism-phobia such as socialized medicine or nationalized health care. But it's the same concept.

Can you explain what 'single payer' means to those of us who don't live in the US please?

Universal health care. Socialized medicine. National health. Emphasis on long term health outcomes. Not for profit health care. Nationalized health care. Health insurance companies kicked out of the game. Big pharma put on a leash by aggressively negotiating what the national program will pay, as does Canada.

BTW, the record is clear that Obama was openly for single payer during his first campaign. However when he actually started his drive to reform health care access, even the DISCUSSION of that most sensible solution which was also supported by the American Medical Association was taken off the table. It was a political/lobbying/economic decision. The powers that be concluded they couldn't get anything at all passed without throwing more money at the health insurance lobby (Obamacare greatly expands their customer base), big pharma, and the big corpses corporations that own hospitals, etc.

I don't recall Obama being in favor of single-payer during the 2008 campaign. Are you sure about that?

Can you explain what 'single payer' means to those of us who don't live in the US please?

Universal health care. Socialized medicine. National health. Emphasis on long term health outcomes. Not for profit health care. Nationalized health care. Health insurance companies kicked out of the game. Big pharma put on a leash by aggressively negotiating what the national program will pay, as does Canada.

BTW, the record is clear that Obama was openly for single payer during his first campaign. However when he actually started his drive to reform health care access, even the DISCUSSION of that most sensible solution which was also supported by the American Medical Association was taken off the table. It was a political/lobbying/economic decision. The powers that be concluded they couldn't get anything at all passed without throwing more money at the health insurance lobby (Obamacare greatly expands their customer base), big pharma, and the big corpses corporations that own hospitals, etc.

I don't recall Obama being in favor of single-payer during the 2008 campaign. Are you sure about that?

You're right. He backed off from that in the 2008 campaign:

Interestingly he made a distinction between single payer and universal which I really don't believe exists in the minds of most liberal health care reform advocates.

He was previously for it:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

http://www.pnhp.org/...ama_on_sing.php