Could a Congress (and a President) legalize abortion regardless of the status of Roe v Wade?

[htuttle]

The Roe v Wade case was based on an interpretation of the right to privacy, if I'm understanding the ruling correctly.

Could a Congress pass legislation that would explicitly affirm the right to abortion? I would think so, but I'm not sure how it would be able to overrule the 20 or so states (based on a count I read today) that re likely to criminalize abortion again, if Roe v Wade is overturned.

Would there need to be a constitutional amendment to legalize it nationwide?

[louis c]

1. Overturning Roe v. Wade

would place the issue in each state to decide.

This will be a political plus for Democrats, as no one can say they are opposed to abortion, but it's the law of the land. Every elected official will have to take a stand and I believe pro-choice is in the vast majority.

Law of unintended consequences.

[gulliver]

3. Yep, we'll win by losing imo.

Republicans will suddenly get very reasonable. Right now Roe v. Wade is their friend.

[exboyfil]

4. What happens if the court grants personhood to fetuses

[jberryhill]

8. Might I suggest you read Roe v Wade?

Roe v Wade assumes that as a given.

There is nothing in Roe v Wade which hinges on any definition of personhood.

[ProudLib72]

9. Errr, second trimester/third trimester is where it happens

First trimester is (supposed to be) up to the woman. Personhood depends on viability of the fetus if I'm not mistaken.

[jberryhill]

10. Good golly, no

Roe v Wade is not based on any definition of “when life begins”.

Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth

[ProudLib72]

11. I didn't say "when life begins". I said "viability"

My understanding was that the state has an interest beginning at some point in the second trimester. Before that time, it is a privacy issue.

Oh, maybe I'm confusing the term "personhood"?

[jberryhill]

12. "Personhood" is simply not a relevant concept

[ProudLib72]

13. Agreed. "Personhood" is a silly term coined to infuse "viability" with emotion

[vi5]

5. I would say "vast majority" is an overestimation...

...majority, yes. But 20 or more years of the "abortion is icky" and the "let's reduce the number of abortion" hair splitters supposedly on our side have done nothing to help our cause and probably a lot to hurt it.

[mythology]

2. Yes

It would be hard, but possible.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. They can do it with just legislation

assuming Congress passes it and a President signs it.

The issue would be that it would obviously face lawsuits and end up at the SCOTUS. Not sure what Constitutional Amendment the other side would cite but they would certainly try to battleram some of their previous arguments that failed in the past, that may have a more sympathetic court in another go-around.

[Hekate]

7. Sure, but they will not