LogFAQs > #904326277

Low. Trump has said it's a priority for him, but the odds he'd be able to get a vehemently anti-RvW judge through confirmation are pretty slim (one of the Republican senators has explicitly said she would not vote for a judge who wasn't in favour of RvW). That and, while precedent isn't ironclad and "a change in social norms" is considered an acceptable justification for overriding precedent (see also "Dred Scott", "Separate but Equal"), the Supreme Court is generally loathe to do it, especially for something as controversial as abortion. It's worth recognizing that a majority of Americans still believe abortions should be legal in most or all cases.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I understand that roe v. wade is the framework for regulations on abortion. But what would overturning it mean? Would that mean there are no laws regulating abortion, or that there are no abortions? Does overturning it just take the matter out of the federal arena and put it in that hands of individual states to decide?

Your last sentence is correct.

If RvW is overturned, it essentially means that there is no federal standard or restriction on abortion, meaning States are free to pass their own laws, up to and including a flat-out ban on abortions.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!