c Richmond Sunlight » 2007 » Abortion; illegal upon overturning of Roe v. Wade. (HB2124)

Abortion; illegal upon overturning of Roe v. Wade. (HB2124)

Introduced By

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Abortion illegal upon overturning of Roe v. Wade. Provides that if and when the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is overturned, allowing the states to by their laws once again regulate abortion, the law in the Commonwealth of Virginia rendering abortion a crime, as it was in effect on June 30, 1970, and prior to the decision in Roe v. Wade, shall be reinstated. The Attorney General shall publish legal notice statewide that, in his opinion, the decision is overturned and that Virginia's law is as it was prior to the decision in Roe v. Wade. The Attorney General shall publish statewide notice of the change in law, along with the reinstated law governing the criminal offense of abortion. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

  • 01/08/2007 Committee
  • 01/08/2007 Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/10/07 077772396
  • 01/08/2007 Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice

Comments

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Presumably Del. Marshall also supports eliminating our sodomy laws, given the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas ruling. I mean, if we're going to pass laws about what will happen on the off chance that the SCOTUS rules in a particular way, shouldn't we first act on existing rulings?

Stephen Braunlich writes:

This is a great bill. Although it only has a slim chance of passing, the intent is sound. Hopefully it will also help people to realize Roe federalized the entirety of the abortion debate, and that if it is overturned the status quo will be just that.

Linda Thomas writes:

Don't we have enough to do without making "what if" laws that can't even take affect unless the supreme court rules a certain way. It strikes me that the General Assembly has enough on their plate without having to worry about passing legislation that may never be able to even have an effect.

Gil Clancy writes:

I agree with Linda. If this were a lawsuit it would be dismissed for lack of standing as "unripe."

David Wright writes:

I think what this bill really has to do with is concern for each and every one of the fetuses that would die between the time Roe is overturned and legislation outlawing abortion could be passed by the Assembly... actually a very practical bill from that perspective (if you value saving fetuses immediately in danger post-Roe). The only reason not to support it of course is if you don't favor criminalizing abortion in the first place.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

What if the Supreme Court were to issue a ruling that it's up to states to decide whether it's acceptable to raise dogs and kill them for their meat? Clearly, we need to pass a bill that would make this illegal, just in case the Supreme Court were to do so.

You are opposed to dog farming...aren't you?

David Wright writes:

Well Waldo- if there was, as is the case for Roe, multiple constitutional challenges to the Federal regulation of dog farming on the supreme court's docket (there isn't), and there was evidence that the practice of farming dogmeat would be widespread upon such a ruling and therefore a substantial number of animals coiuld be in danger between the time of said ruling and Virginia's legislative response (there's not- even if there were a market for it someone would have to breed, grow, kill and can them first) then I suppose there might be the need to consider a bill to make it illegal. As it is tho, your example is really just kind of silly and not applicable here, isn't it?

Gil Clancy writes:

Yeah, DW's got a pretty valid point there.

Tim Hulsey writes:

Well, I'm not opposed to dog farming. Pigs are smarter than dogs and sheep are cuter, yet I'll gladly eat pork and lamb chops any day of the week (twice on Sunday). And it's downright silly to pass a law in the far-fetched hope that the Supreme Court might, just might, eventually rule the thing constitutional.

Jenni writes:

How about we keep Bob Marshall and the Virginia Legislature out of my womb?
Making abortion illegal does not prevent abortions it just sentences the women who get them to death or mutilation for back alley abortions. This is already a proven fact. Abortion WAS illegal and many women died because of it. Do you truly believe that a child born unwanted subjected to a life of abuse because it is unwanted is better off than a child never born? Are you personally willing to adopt all the unwanted children? Even one? No I thought not. Don’t say – “h there are plenty of people who will”, because the facts say that there aren’t. Look at how many unwanted crack babies go unadopted and spend their lives in foster care or worse? Your argument is that it’s against Gods will – where is God for all those children growing up in the “system” because they where unwanted but not aborted? Do you believe they deserve there lot in life? What did they do to deserve that?

Sukamin writes:

Nearly 37 years have passed since Virginia’s law making abortion illegal was in effect. In that time, more than a generation of women and men have grown to become voting citizens of Virginia, and many more have come to make Virginia their home. It would be a grave violation of their rights to impose the old law on them. This bill seems a shoddy way to render an immediate decision to abortion supporters on this critical issue. It would likely cause shock and bitterness not only among those who support people making their own decisions about abortions, but on those who have not seriously considered the issue and come up with their own stand. This could seriously backfire on abortion supporters.
Personally, I would never have an abortion. However, I staunchly support each woman’s right to make her own decision. There are certain groups of various religious persuasions who are so self-righteous about what they ‘know’ is God’s will that they would abrogate the individual rights of others, whether of women, or of those of a different religious persuasion. Hopefully we have grown beyond such in our own democracy.

Jan writes:

Being an adoptee myself, let me tell you is not all happy snappy oh isn't it GREAT that someone gave her a home. It has been years of the unknown origin. But I digress. Growing up in the 60's, knowing girls that had illegal abortions is all very real and very true. Many died or were made sterile. But the REAL point is the government shouldn't be telling me what to do with my body.
Period End. It is my choice since I have all the work-you know, giving birth, raising, feeding, educating.
Unfortunately these trigger laws are becoming all too common-just IN CASE the wingnuts would happen to get RVW overturned.
Doubtful.