First of all, you really don’t seem to know what the fuck you are talking about. “Outlaw abortion”? Where in the world did you come up with that moronic idea? Anybody with half a brain knows 2 facts are in play here. First one is that the chance of SCOTUS ever voting just to rehear Rowe vs Wade is almost nil since most of the justices have already stated they won’t vote to rehear existing SCOTUS decisions. Chances are this will never come to SCOTUS to rehear. But the second fact is that even if SCOTUS rehears it and overturns it, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN? I asked you that in an earlier post but you conveniently decided to NOT answer me. ANSWER THE QUESTION! Do you really think if it is overturned that abortion will be outlawed? 

If they do rehear then 100% they can overturn.  Once had happens abortion restriction laws come into affect for half the nation.  Are your saying that won't happen? Its documented. Half of the usa will lose access to abortion. Not sure what you are getting at. 

How many abortions do you plan to have the next 5-10 years?  Sounds like you're overly optimistic with your "social agenda."   

None but how many mag bans do you see coming.  What if they start doing 8 round then 5 then no semi auto. Cause muskets lol.  It's a slippery slope. I will defend freedoms of others which I don't use.  Because I am American that's my duty as a Patriot.   If you pick and choose what freedom to protect or have you dont have freedom.

None but how many mag bans do you see coming.  What if they start doing 8 round then 5 then no semi auto. Cause muskets lol.  It's a slippery slope. I will defend freedoms of others which I don't use.  Because I am American that's my duty as a Patriot.   If you pick and choose what freedom to protect or have you dont have freedom.

Since firearms are a protected Constitutional right, and abortions are not -- Supreme Court mistakes notwithstanding -- your parallel is not logical.

Rights are not granted by the Court.  They are protected by the Constitution.  Science has progressed greatly since the 1970s.  To argue a growing child is not a human being ignores what we know today.

The right to buy, sell and own slaves was settled law.
Women barred from voting was settled law.
Prohibition was settled law, which was an actual Constitutional Amendment.
Legally owning fully automatic firearms was settled law.
In Texas, killing a person was justified if 3 people of good moral character testified the deceased "needed killing."  Settled law!

Your "settled law" argument is stupid.  The only laws written in stone, AFAIK, are enumerated 1 through 10. 

Even Supreme Court rulings have been reversed.  Here's a list of 10 such cases ...

10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases

https://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm

First of all, you really don’t seem to know what the fuck you are talking about. “Outlaw abortion”? Where in the world did you come up with that moronic idea? Anybody with half a brain knows 2 facts are in play here. First one is that the chance of SCOTUS ever voting just to rehear Rowe vs Wade is almost nil since most of the justices have already stated they won’t vote to rehear existing SCOTUS decisions. Chances are this will never come to SCOTUS to rehear. But the second fact is that even if SCOTUS rehears it and overturns it, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN? I asked you that in an earlier post but you conveniently decided to NOT answer me. ANSWER THE QUESTION! Do you really think if it is overturned that abortion will be outlawed? 

Inspector, I don’t to mean to get you into this, but that’s the perfect reply to Flapp’s comment.

Hound 

... I will defend freedoms of others which I don't use.  Because I am American that's my duty as a Patriot.   If you pick and choose what freedom to protect or have you dont have freedom.

Whose FREEDOM are you "protecting"?  Where does the freedom you refer to come from?

If they do rehear then 100% they can overturn.  Once had happens abortion restriction laws come into affect for half the nation.  Are your saying that won't happen? Its documented. Half of the usa will lose access to abortion. Not sure what you are getting at.

Good, I at least have your attention. You still don’t understand the entirety of the laws and restrictions and constitutional rights. First, abortion is not a right. It has never been and never will be. In order to make it a right it has to be added to the constitution. And we all know the chances of that happening are nil. The idea behind our constitution is for any law or restriction not stated in our constitution is to be settled by the states, counties and cities. And it is perfectly correct for each state to have varying levels of freedoms and restrictions. There is one unwritten freedom that Americans have. And that is freedom of movement. And combined with freedom of choice gives Americans a very unique and powerful situation that a lot of people in this world don’t have and will never experience. Keep in mind all of the above while I continue.

You said “Half of the usa will lose access to abortion.” It’s just not a true statement. You are not stating the truth in its entirety. The truth is that they may or may not lose their access to abortion to varying degrees in the state they happen to be in at that exact moment only. So please do not continue with with your train of thought that anyone will lose access to abortion because it is just not true. There is not one state that outright outlaws abortion. Just because there is a restriction on abortion in a state also does not mean they still cannot get an abortion. The point I made in my post to you a few days ago is that not one woman in the US has ever been denied an abortion. Period.

BEFORE Rowe vs Wade women were never denied the ability to get an abortion. Ever. How do you think all these women were getting abortions before Rowe vs Wade? They did it just like they do now. They got in their car and drove to the nearest abortion clinic, paid their $50 and had the brains of their babies sucked out. An American citizen only needs to get in their car and go to a state that has laws that allow abortions to the extent she wants. All Rowe vs Wade does is make it more of a convenience and makes it possible for congress to force taxpayers to pay for abortions. Nothing more, nothing less. For me it is disgusting to have to pay for a woman to have an abortion just because she took a calculated risk and lost. Having sex and getting pregnant is not making a mistake if she didn’t want to get pregnant. It is a calculated risk only.

I was alive during the Rowe vs Wade debate. And the left and media constantly lied and said women couldn’t get abortions. It was and never will be true. You have been brainwashed into thinking what you do. While access to abortion might have been restricted to one degree or another only in the general area they live in, women have been getting abortions without restrictions long before Rowe vs Wade was ever considered. The fact is Rowe vs Wade will never be overturned because it will never be reheard. But even if it is reheard, and overturned, women will still never lose the ability to get an abortion. They may have to drive an additional hour or two in order to get one. But they will always have access to abortion.

Good, I at least have your attention. You still don’t understand the entirety of the laws and restrictions and constitutional rights. First, abortion is not a right. It has never been and never will be. In order to make it a right it has to be added to the constitution. And we all know the chances of that happening are nil. The idea behind our constitution is for any law or restriction not stated in our constitution is to be settled by the states, counties and cities. And it is perfectly correct for each state to have varying levels of freedoms and restrictions. There is one unwritten freedom that Americans have. And that is freedom of movement. And combined with freedom of choice gives Americans a very unique and powerful situation that a lot of people in this world don’t have and will never experience. Keep in mind all of the above while I continue.

You said “Half of the usa will lose access to abortion.” It’s just not a true statement. You are not stating the truth in its entirety. The truth is that they may or may not lose their access to abortion to varying degrees in the state they happen to be in at that exact moment only. So please do not continue with with your train of thought that anyone will lose access to abortion because it is just not true. There is not one state that outright outlaws abortion. Just because there is a restriction on abortion in a state also does not mean they still cannot get an abortion. The point I made in my post to you a few days ago is that not one woman in the US has ever been denied an abortion. Period.

BEFORE Rowe vs Wade women were never denied the ability to get an abortion. Ever. How do you think all these women were getting abortions before Rowe vs Wade? They did it just like they do now. They got in their car and drove to the nearest abortion clinic, paid their $50 and had the brains of their babies sucked out. An American citizen only needs to get in their car and go to a state that has laws that allow abortions to the extent she wants. All Rowe vs Wade does is make it more of a convenience and makes it possible for congress to force taxpayers to pay for abortions. Nothing more, nothing less. For me it is disgusting to have to pay for a woman to have an abortion just because she took a calculated risk and lost. Having sex and getting pregnant is not making a mistake if she didn’t want to get pregnant. It is a calculated risk only.

I was alive during the Rowe vs Wade debate. And the left and media constantly lied and said women couldn’t get abortions. It was and never will be true. You have been brainwashed into thinking what you do. While access to abortion might have been restricted to one degree or another only in the general area they live in, women have been getting abortions without restrictions long before Rowe vs Wade was ever considered. The fact is Rowe vs Wade will never be overturned because it will never be reheard. But even if it is reheard, and overturned, women will still never lose the ability to get an abortion. They may have to drive an additional hour or two in order to get one. But they will always have access to abortion.

Georgia passed the "heartbeat law" -- if a heartbeat is recorded, the abortion is only allowed in very rare, narrow and specific circumstances.  Hollywood threatened to "boycott the state."  Haven't heard a word about any boycott since.   

Since 1973, there have been many new scientific tests and facts discovered.  To think that in 1973 pro-abortion doctors knew enough to guess-timate when life begins, when the fetus feels pain or has sensory perception and when it is considered viable, and that nothing has changed in nearly HALF A CENTURY of medical and technological breakthroughs is naive at best -- more like intellectually and ethically dishonest.

Since R v W is "the law", every new test or analysis that could shed new light on when life begins has been ignored.  Nothing doctors provide now matters, because it changes nothing about the law.  However, if the feds stop protecting abortionists, then we can have an honest and scientific discussion on the practice.  Until then, it's unlikely anything will change -- even if it should.

Georgia passed the "heartbeat law" -- if a heartbeat is recorded, the abortion is only allowed in very rare, narrow and specific circumstances.  Hollywood threatened to "boycott the state."  Haven't heard a word about any boycott since.   

Since 1973, there have been many new scientific tests and facts discovered.  To think that in 1973 pro-abortion doctors knew enough to guess-timate when life begins, when the fetus feels pain or has sensory perception and when it is considered viable, and that nothing has changed in nearly HALF A CENTURY of medical and technological breakthroughs is naive at best -- more like intellectually and ethically dishonest.

Since R v W is "the law", every new test or analysis that could shed new light on when life begins has been ignored.  Nothing doctors provide now matters, because it changes nothing about the law.  However, if the feds stop protecting abortionists, then we can have an honest and scientific discussion on the practice.  Until then, it's unlikely anything will change -- even if it should.

I have personally changed some of my opinions on abortion since it became a national topic in the 70’s. I have gone from agreeing with Omnigun to a much more restricted view of abortions. But I am not completely against them. And medical science has a lot to do with my changing opinion. My brother had a lot to do with my changing opinion as well.

But I have not changed my opinion about this being a state issue and not a constitutional issue. The states have the right to restrict and limit abortions as they see fit. And we all have the choice to travel/move to a state with less restrictions. It seems the younger generation doesn’t appreciate the freedoms we older folk understand and hold dear.

Good, I at least have your attention. You still don’t understand the entirety of the laws and restrictions and constitutional rights. First, abortion is not a right. It has never been and never will be. In order to make it a right it has to be added to the constitution. And we all know the chances of that happening are nil. The idea behind our constitution is for any law or restriction not stated in our constitution is to be settled by the states, counties and cities. And it is perfectly correct for each state to have varying levels of freedoms and restrictions. There is one unwritten freedom that Americans have. And that is freedom of movement. And combined with freedom of choice gives Americans a very unique and powerful situation that a lot of people in this world don’t have and will never experience. Keep in mind all of the above while I continue.

You said “Half of the usa will lose access to abortion.” It’s just not a true statement. You are not stating the truth in its entirety. The truth is that they may or may not lose their access to abortion to varying degrees in the state they happen to be in at that exact moment only. So please do not continue with with your train of thought that anyone will lose access to abortion because it is just not true. There is not one state that outright outlaws abortion. Just because there is a restriction on abortion in a state also does not mean they still cannot get an abortion. The point I made in my post to you a few days ago is that not one woman in the US has ever been denied an abortion. Period.

BEFORE Rowe vs Wade women were never denied the ability to get an abortion. Ever. How do you think all these women were getting abortions before Rowe vs Wade? They did it just like they do now. They got in their car and drove to the nearest abortion clinic, paid their $50 and had the brains of their babies sucked out. An American citizen only needs to get in their car and go to a state that has laws that allow abortions to the extent she wants. All Rowe vs Wade does is make it more of a convenience and makes it possible for congress to force taxpayers to pay for abortions. Nothing more, nothing less. For me it is disgusting to have to pay for a woman to have an abortion just because she took a calculated risk and lost. Having sex and getting pregnant is not making a mistake if she didn’t want to get pregnant. It is a calculated risk only.

I was alive during the Rowe vs Wade debate. And the left and media constantly lied and said women couldn’t get abortions. It was and never will be true. You have been brainwashed into thinking what you do. While access to abortion might have been restricted to one degree or another only in the general area they live in, women have been getting abortions without restrictions long before Rowe vs Wade was ever considered. The fact is Rowe vs Wade will never be overturned because it will never be reheard. But even if it is reheard, and overturned, women will still never lose the ability to get an abortion. They may have to drive an additional hour or two in order to get one. But they will always have access to abortion.

I do agree that technically you are correct in some ways.  It's not outlawed across the nation. But flapp was right to aka heartbeat law where it is outlawed 100% in a state.  Yes you can travel but that is a burden. People who want abortions tend to be poor and not have the resources to have a baby.  That means many don't have the resources to pay to travel and take off work etc to get it done.  This a undue burden that should not be the case. Much like how our current state has a soft ban on guns right now.  It's impossible to get an appointment so basically many people including myself can't purchase guns and exercise our rights.  Sure we can technically go to another state and purchase them.  Is that fair? Same argument can be held if you don't like Hawaii gun laws, move.  Is that fair? Personally I say no.

You shouldn't limit freedom and someone's choice even if you don't agree with it.  It's important to protect all freedoms or you have none. In many of those states that are restricted they will just get more and more till its basically banned. I personally think abortion is a constitutional right via privacy like how it was argued. There was no way for the founder's to know abortion because of the technological times but I believe if they did it would be included spelled out.

I have personally changed some of my opinions on abortion since it became a national topic in the 70’s. I have gone from agreeing with Omnigun to a much more restricted view of abortions. But I am not completely against them. And medical science has a lot to do with my changing opinion. My brother had a lot to do with my changing opinion as well.

But I have not changed my opinion about this being a state issue and not a constitutional issue. The states have the right to restrict and limit abortions as they see fit. And we all have the choice to travel/move to a state with less restrictions. It seems the younger generation doesn’t appreciate the freedoms we older folk understand and hold dear.

 
I do appreciate somethings but it's completely wrong to assume just because you are old you know what's right.  Back in the day old people thought slaves were ok. Argued for a while till they were replaced. Same goes for women's rights.  List can go on for people who were wrong about something. 

Whose FREEDOM are you "protecting"?  Where does the freedom you refer to come from?

The freedom of all Americans. It might not be spelt out word for word in the Constitution but it is everywhere. Privacy or how it came by shouldn't matter.  There's no way the Constitution can predict everything.  It's not perfect.   But as an American you should always strive for more freedom not less.  Even if you oppose the view. That's what America culture is about. Personal choice.  Even if 99% of the people are pro life, we shouldn't exclude the 1%. Much like religion all religion is acceptable even Muslims.


Also youor anyone haven't answered my question. If you did a test and your future child had either genetic or physical issues.  Would you support aborting?

First of all, you really don’t seem to know what the fuck you are talking about. “Outlaw abortion”? Where in the world did you come up with that moronic idea? Anybody with half a brain knows 2 facts are in play here. First one is that the chance of SCOTUS ever voting just to rehear Rowe vs Wade is almost nil since most of the justices have already stated they won’t vote to rehear existing SCOTUS decisions. Chances are this will never come to SCOTUS to rehear. But the second fact is that even if SCOTUS rehears it and overturns it, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN? I asked you that in an earlier post but you conveniently decided to NOT answer me. ANSWER THE QUESTION! Do you really think if it is overturned that abortion will be outlawed? 

Inspector is right. The supreme court can't just magically overturn Roe v. Wade because they composition of the justices is different. A case in controversy needs to work its way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would have to overrule their own precedent established in Roe v. Wade. Both of these are extremely unlikely, if not impossible due to the existence of the other. The Supreme Court can't have a case in controversy over a subject that's already been decided, and they can't decide on something (again) without a case in controversy. At best, someone could bring a case along the peripherals like Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In Casey, the state didn't outright ban abortions, but instead created obstacles like waiting periods and requiring parental consent and this was ruled constitutional. So there are ways to attack abortion along the borders, but there are balances to keep these in check. Also with the way the Supreme Court works, this would be years and years away.

Additionally, even though abortion was not protected by the Constitution outright in specific language, it can still fall under the penumbra of constitutional protections (Griswold v. Connecticut). In the same way the constitution did not specifically say speech over the internet is protected under the first amendment, or semi-automatic firearms are protected under the second amendment, there can be a logical inference that they fall within the constitutional shadow and are thus protected.

Also, of interesting relevance to us here in the firearms community, abortion and gun control are basically the same argument from polar opposite sides:

Primary argument: "We need to ban (guns/abortions) for the sake of the children"
Courts rule: "no you can't ban (guns/abortions) outright, but states can make their own policies."
Individual states: "Well we don't like (guns/abortions) so we're gonna throw up obstacles like waiting periods, and mandatory classes, and proof of competency, and make it really hard to have (guns/abortions) in our state."

Believing the federal government or states should have the right to restrict one and not the other is quite hypocritical.

First of all, you really don’t seem to know what the fuck you are talking about. “Outlaw abortion”? Where in the world did you come up with that moronic idea? Anybody with half a brain knows 2 facts are in play here. First one is that the chance of SCOTUS ever voting just to rehear Rowe vs Wade is almost nil since most of the justices have already stated they won’t vote to rehear existing SCOTUS decisions. Chances are this will never come to SCOTUS to rehear. But the second fact is that even if SCOTUS rehears it and overturns it, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN? I asked you that in an earlier post but you conveniently decided to NOT answer me. ANSWER THE QUESTION! Do you really think if it is overturned that abortion will be outlawed? 

Thank you Inspector for this information.
The left makes it seem like as soon as a new justice is appointed,  all prior cases are re opened for review.

Thank you for sharing what actually occurs, since I was genuinely interested. 

I do agree that technically you are correct in some ways.  It's not outlawed across the nation. But flapp was right to aka heartbeat law where it is outlawed 100% in a state.  Yes you can travel but that is a burden. People who want abortions tend to be poor and not have the resources to have a baby.  That means many don't have the resources to pay to travel and take off work etc to get it done.  This a undue burden that should not be the case. Much like how our current state has a soft ban on guns right now.  It's impossible to get an appointment so basically many people including myself can't purchase guns and exercise our rights.  Sure we can technically go to another state and purchase them.  Is that fair? Same argument can be held if you don't like Hawaii gun laws, move.  Is that fair? Personally I say no.

You shouldn't limit freedom and someone's choice even if you don't agree with it.  It's important to protect all freedoms or you have none. In many of those states that are restricted they will just get more and more till its basically banned. I personally think abortion is a constitutional right via privacy like how it was argued. There was no way for the founder's to know abortion because of the technological times but I believe if they did it would be included spelled out.

Are you for real? Seriously. What universe do you live in where people don’t have to take responsibility for their own actions? If people want to fuck their brains out they need to take responsibility for their own actions if the woman gets pregnant. Who fucking cares if it is a burden? Oh, that’s right, you do!    The facts and the truth don’t care about your feeling snowflake. Sorry. If people are so poor they don’t have the resources to have a baby that they can’t afford, they shouldn’t be taking a calculated risk and fucking their brains out. If they do that without considering the consequences then they are morons and live in an unreal universe like you do. They also need to suffer the consequences of their actions. Otherwise people are going to continue to make bad decisions. That’s how people learn, moron. But if you take away their responsibility and the consequences of their actions they will just keep on doing what feels good to them. Where do you come up with this shit? Really. Where? Why should us tax payers pay for the stupidity of others? Only morons want to pay for the stupidity of other morons. But I guess you feel so bad for those morons that you want to pay for their stupidity? Boo hoo, sorry your feelings are getting in the way of your critical thinking.

Where do come off making this shit up?    Seriously, how do get through life thinking it’s okay for people to act irresponsibly and that the government should encourage it? Life isn’t fair. You need to grow up and learn some life lessons, dude. You really have no conception of the real world.

.

Where do come off making this shit up?    Seriously, how do get through life thinking it’s okay for people to act irresponsibly and that the government should encourage it? Life isn’t fair. You need to grow up and learn some life lessons, dude. You really have no conception of the real world.

Exactly (well mostly) what I’ve been trying to get through to him. He’s still stuck on his feelings and refusing to accept reality. He thinks what he wants will change the world. I mean I get people are energized by certain issues, but he seems to twist or ignore facts for what he believes is “right” in his mind.

 
I do appreciate somethings but it's completely wrong to assume just because you are old you know what's right.  Back in the day old people thought slaves were ok. Argued for a while till they were replaced. Same goes for women's rights.  List can go on for people who were wrong about something.

Wow, dude. You just make up shit as you go along. Wow. And I’ll bet you are fine with making stuff up. You accuse me assuming something just because I am old? I never said that. But did it ever dawn on you that I could be right? So far you offer no proof of my being wrong.   

I never said just because I am old I know what’s right. All I said was I changed my OPINION over the years, gave examples of why I changed my opinion and said the younger generation doesn’t appreciate the freedoms someone my age does. I don’t know where you get off saying I’m right just because I’m old. I don’t appreciate your making that up and your accusation.

Where do you get off accusing me of saying something I didn’t? But I suspect I hit a nerve with you. Why else would you react like that! Personally, I think that deep down inside you know I am right. It’s just that your feelings won’t allow you be objective and view the truth. 

Dude, I’m done talking to you. I don’t appreciate your making shit up about me and accusing me of saying something I didn’t. Good luck living in your alternate universe. By not accepting reality you are just making your life harder for yourself by not dealing with the real world. And you certainly don’t make any sense to those of us who understand reality.

Inspector is right. The supreme court can't just magically overturn Roe v. Wade because they composition of the justices is different. A case in controversy needs to work its way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would have to overrule their own precedent established in Roe v. Wade. Both of these are extremely unlikely, if not impossible due to the existence of the other. The Supreme Court can't have a case in controversy over a subject that's already been decided, and they can't decide on something (again) without a case in controversy. At best, someone could bring a case along the peripherals like Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In Casey, the state didn't outright ban abortions, but instead created obstacles like waiting periods and requiring parental consent and this was ruled constitutional. So there are ways to attack abortion along the borders, but there are balances to keep these in check. Also with the way the Supreme Court works, this would be years and years away.

Additionally, even though abortion was not protected by the Constitution outright in specific language, it can still fall under the penumbra of constitutional protections (Griswold v. Connecticut). In the same way the constitution did not specifically say speech over the internet is protected under the first amendment, or semi-automatic firearms are protected under the second amendment, there can be a logical inference that they fall within the constitutional shadow and are thus protected.

Also, of interesting relevance to us here in the firearms community, abortion and gun control are basically the same argument from polar opposite sides:

Primary argument: "We need to ban (guns/abortions) for the sake of the children"
Courts rule: "no you can't ban (guns/abortions) outright, but states can make their own policies."
Individual states: "Well we don't like (guns/abortions) so we're gonna throw up obstacles like waiting periods, and mandatory classes, and proof of competency, and make it really hard to have (guns/abortions) in our state."

Believing the federal government or states should have the right to restrict one and not the other is quite hypocritical.

Well said and researched. I learned something new from your post. Thanks!

Thank you Inspector for this information.
The left makes it seem like as soon as a new justice is appointed,  all prior cases are re opened for review.

Thank you for sharing what actually occurs, since I was genuinely interested.

Long time no see! How have you guys been? I hope you two are doing well.

You are absolutely right about this. And because the left makes this into something emotional, those who are prone to allowing their feelings to override simple logic means they are always overreacting to things that are mostly uncertain. Those of us who use our heads understand the lies that the left puts out. Even if ACB were the type of judge that allows her religion to override her decisions against the law and constitution (which she is not), it is a totally moot point as she will never get the chance to vote whether to rehear Rowe vs Wade or not. So it makes no difference in the real world. So why play on peoples emotions? The left does this to influence the low information voter. Those that think with their hearts instead of their minds. You sir understand this situation very well and better than most.

See

Inspector is right. The supreme court can't just magically overturn Roe v. Wade because they composition of the justices is different. A case in controversy needs to work its way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would have to overrule their own precedent established in Roe v. Wade. Both of these are extremely unlikely, if not impossible due to the existence of the other. The Supreme Court can't have a case in controversy over a subject that's already been decided, and they can't decide on something (again) without a case in controversy. At best, someone could bring a case along the peripherals like Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In Casey, the state didn't outright ban abortions, but instead created obstacles like waiting periods and requiring parental consent and this was ruled constitutional. So there are ways to attack abortion along the borders, but there are balances to keep these in check. Also with the way the Supreme Court works, this would be years and years away.

Additionally, even though abortion was not protected by the Constitution outright in specific language, it can still fall under the penumbra of constitutional protections (Griswold v. Connecticut). In the same way the constitution did not specifically say speech over the internet is protected under the first amendment, or semi-automatic firearms are protected under the second amendment, there can be a logical inference that they fall within the constitutional shadow and are thus protected.

Also, of interesting relevance to us here in the firearms community, abortion and gun control are basically the same argument from polar opposite sides:

Primary argument: "We need to ban (guns/abortions) for the sake of the children"
Courts rule: "no you can't ban (guns/abortions) outright, but states can make their own policies."
Individual states: "Well we don't like (guns/abortions) so we're gonna throw up obstacles like waiting periods, and mandatory classes, and proof of competency, and make it really hard to have (guns/abortions) in our state."

Believing the federal government or states should have the right to restrict one and not the other is quite hypocritical.

This was my bad, I had it poorly worded.  Antithesis is spot on.   You cant re-rule but you can bring a case that brings up similar if the same circumstances and can get ruled on. 

Inspector please dont make it seem like its so impossible.  IT really isnt.

Thank you Inspector for this information.
The left makes it seem like as soon as a new justice is appointed,  all prior cases are re opened for review.

Thank you for sharing what actually occurs, since I was genuinely interested.

Long time no see! How have you guys been? I hope you two are doing well.

You are absolutely right about this. And because the left makes this into something emotional, those who are prone to allowing their feelings to override simple logic means they are always overreacting to things that are mostly uncertain. Those of us who use our heads understand the lies that the left puts out. Even if ACB were the type of judge that allows her religion to override her decisions against the law and constitution (which she is not), it is a totally moot point as she will never get the chance to vote whether to rehear Rowe vs Wade or not. So it makes no difference in the real world. So why play on peoples emotions? The left does this to influence the low information voter. Those that think with their hearts instead of their minds. You sir understand this situation very well and better than most.