After Roe v. Wade, then what?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

After Roe v. Wade, then what?

People think that Roe vs Wade legalized abortion and that overturning it would make abortion ilegal again. This is not the case.

In 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, 13 states -- including Colorado, California, Oregon and North Carolina -- allowed abortion for reasons including the mother's mental or physical health, rape and incest, and fetal deformity. New York allowed abortion on demand up to the 24th week of pregnancy, with similar laws in Alaska, Hawaii and Washington. Mississippi allowed abortion for rape and incest, while Alabama allowed abortion for the mother's physical health. Thirty-one states allowed abortion only to save the mother's life.

That adds up to abortion being legal in all 50 states before Roe vs Wade.

Roe did not legalize abortion. Rather, the Court discovered a "right to privacy" -- nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.

So whats all the fuss?

[Steppe Merc]

Somethings should not be up to the states, such as segregation, abortion, etc.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Somethings should not be up to the states, such as segregation,

Yup thats unconstitutional.

, abortion,

Abortion has no standing in the constitution. In fact I would say if anything it opposes it. Again abortion was legal in all 50 states before Roe vs Wade. The difference was they actually enforced the laws.

[Del Arroyo]

I personally wouldn't have any problem with the near-total illegalization of abortion, though I could stomach the mere abolition of partial-birth. Abortion is just wrong, and you don't have to be a born-again Evangelical Christian (or religious at all!) to realize this.

DA

[Steppe Merc]

Whether or not it is unconstitutional or not doesn't matter, is what I'm trying to say. Abortion for the first trimester ought to be legal, thus the states should not be able to outlaw it or make it legal after the first trimester.

[Del Arroyo]

Actually I sort of agree with Steppe Merc.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Actually I totally agree with Gelatinous Cube.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Whether or not it is unconstitutional or not doesn't matter, is what I'm trying to say. Abortion for the first trimester ought to be legal, thus the states should not be able to outlaw it or make it legal after the first trimester.

Why ought it be legal?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Abortion for the first trimester ought to be legal, thus the states should not be able to outlaw it or make it legal after the first trimester.

So you wouldnt settle for in cases of rape, incest or endangering the mothers life but abortion on demand for the first three months? I doubt that would ever pass. Again even before Roe vs Wade abortion was not ilegal.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As a Catholic, I oppose abortion.

As an amateur student of the Constitution, I think that Roe v. Wade -- and a bunch of other decisions as well -- violate the 10th ammendment. This leaves me, on a Constitutional level, with GelCube and Gawain -- egads.

SF

[Don Corleone]

You know Gawain, be careful what you wish for. I'm going to 'borrow' an idea from a column I read in NRO yesterday, but actually, the Republicans have more to lose in Roe being overturned than the Democrats do. For 30 years, the Democrats have sheepishly tried to explain with a straight face why late term abortions, abortion on demand, all the rest of the trappings must be maintained as the law of the land. Republicans have had an easy job of gathering everyone who didn't agree with that extreme into the 'pro-life' camp. But what happens when it comes back to the people? People who vote for Pro-life candidates, such as myself, are going to pay a lot more attention to "is this guy against after 20 weeks, or is he all the way back to the Right to Life Ammendment, that mandates no abortions even to save the life of the mother". Cause I'll tell you what... the day abortion becomes totally illegal is the day I surrender my voting card and move. I will not watch my wife die trying to bring an birthable child into this world to satisfy the far Right (and on this issue, I know well, as a voting Republican, I've actually read what our platform calls for).

I'm not trying to issue threats. I'm trying to remind everyone this is not a white & black issue. If Roe gets overturned, we're talking about finding the balance point all over again. It doesn't mean the Franklin Grahams of the world get to run roughsod over the rest of us (shame he didn't learn more from his daddy).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If Roe gets overturned, we're talking about finding the balance point all over again.

Whats the big vry of the pro abortioists? What if it endangers the life of the mother right? Well before Roe vs Wade that was already legal in every state. The balance point should be reached by the individual state not the federal government. I really dont see why Roe vs Wade is even important other than it is one of the best illustrations of Judicial activism I know of. It surley once more has no basis in the constitution nor was it needed to make abortion legal.

[Don Corleone]

Whats the big vry of the pro abortioists? What if it endangers the life of the mother right? Well before Roe vs Wade that was already legal in every state. The balance point should be reached by the individual state not the federal government. I really dont see why Roe vs Wade is even important other than it is one of the best illustrations of Judicial activism I know of. It surley once more has no basis in the constitution nor was it needed to make abortion legal.

Amen, and alleluia brother. You should however understand that your position, and mind, is not where the Religious Right stands on this issue. Trust me on this one, Pat Robertson won't be happy with a 'state by state' solution.

You DOknow that the Right to Life Ammendment calls for an outlaw of all abortions whether the development of the fetus is threatened or not, right?

[Don Corleone]

You do realize that even among religious Republicans, the so-called Religious right are a minority, right? My point wasn't to throw out the perennial boogeyman of the religious right, it was to call attention to the fact that on this one issue, they have a loud voice.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You should however understand that your position, and mind, is not where the Religious Right stands on this issue. Trust me on this one, Pat Robertson won't be happy with a 'state by state' solution.

So what? They will never be the majority no matter what the left says. Again this is a democracy.

You DOknow that the Right to Life Ammendment calls for an outlaw of all abortions whether the development of the fetus is threatened or not, right?

And again it will never pass. You would see an amedment on marriage before you would see that and dont hold your breath waiting on the marriage amendment. It aint a gonna happen. Again they are to the right what NARAL is to the left. Their inflexibility causes them and us all harm. People have to be reasonable if we are to life together in peace.

[Don Corleone]

All I'm trying to say is not everyone pays lip service to it. Some, even in Congress, believe that crap. But again, you're absolutely right. I trust the people. I know we will get a reasonable solution on abortion if we let the will of the majority decide. At the very least, the burden of the decision of : right turn to planned parenthood or left turn to the delivery room will be alleviated.

[Aenlic]

The will of the majority does not trump the Constitution. The founding fathers wisely made it difficult for the majority to rule absolutely. Remember, the majority in the South (in this case those who could vote) kept some of the worst aspects of slavery by the de facto implementation of Jim Crow laws. Majority rule becomes a tyranny of the majority when checks aren't put in place to preserve minority rights. Thus we have the Bill of Rights. Democracy is just mob rule without it.

[Don Corleone]

The will of the majority does not trump the Constitution. The founding fathers wisely made it difficult for the majority to rule absolutely. Remember, the majority in the South (in this case those who could vote) kept some of the worst aspects of slavery by the de facto implementation of Jim Crow laws. Majority rule becomes a tyranny of the majority when checks aren't put in place to preserve minority rights. Thus we have the Bill of Rights. Democracy is just mob rule without it.

You're absolutely correct, Aenlic. The consititution does supercede state law on a matter. And in this case, it is clear... so, if you would be so kind would you explain to us how the US Constitution guarantees a right to a 3rd trimester abotion? Should be a fairly simple matter, as it's been established law for 30 years now, right?

[Samurai Waki]

This is actually the first time I'm in total agreement with Don and GC

[Aenlic]

Take a real hard look at your responses to my post. Where in my post did I take a stance for or against abortion? I made no mention of the issue at all; nor did I mention state laws versus federal laws. No one here has the slightest clue of my stance on government or abortion or anything else. I guarantee that it isn't the one you think, no matter which side of the argument you happen to support.

I find the responses interesting, to say the least. Have you allowed your dogmatic arguments on a heated and emotional issue to cloud your ability to see things other than in black and white, pro and con?

I'll say it again. The founding fathers were prescient in their structuring of the Constitution and balancing state versus federal government in such a way as to prevent a tyranny of the majority. This is because the majority is not always right. Especially in regard to emotionally charged issues, care must be taken s that reason isn't overcome by emotion. I'm not saying either side is right or wrong, here. I'm deliberately not taking a stance at all. I'm saying that the heat of the argument causes people to lose all sense proportion. The defensive reflex of an entrenched view overshadows reason and deliberation. A majority, in the heated moment of impassioned response, is a mob. The framers of the Constitution knew this. And they designed our government in such a way as to make a tyranny of the majority difficult to achieve. Reading some of the writings of people like Jefferson and Madison might give you a clue. Even with the intentional structuring of our government as a republic and not a pure democracy, unreason and dogma (on any side of a heated issue) can create change which is later regretted. The 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act are a prime example of what happens when there is a tyranny of the majority.

The reason that you don't want a majority, on any issue, to have absolute rule is similar to the reason you don't go shopping for groceries on an empty stomach. Your stomach will guide your hand in the store; and your emotions will guide your ability to reason when voting. Carefully reasoned deliberations suffer from the caprice of whim, emotion, physical condition and even the weather.

When someone says "let the people decide" I'm all for the concept. With the proviso that the decision may not ever override the basic freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution without deliberation and reason and careful consideration. Only by changing the Constitution may those rights be changed; and the process for doing that was made deliberately difficult by those who wrote it.

I'll now return you to your previously scheduled irrational arguments.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

When someone says "let the people decide" I'm all for the concept. With the proviso that the decision may not ever override the basic freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution without deliberation and reason and careful consideration. Only by changing the Constitution may those rights be changed; and the process for doing that was made deliberately difficult by those who wrote it.

On this we agree. But our point is that you cant use the constitution as it is currently written to support abortion. The constitution clearly states that any power not given to the federal government belongs to the states. Abortion falls under this heading. Nice disertation though.

[Aenlic]

The court probably overstepped in Roe v. Wade; however that does not mean that a right to privacy doesn't exist in the Constitution. Roe v Wade was not the only decision to combine the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to arrive at a concept of secure in person and personal liberty = right to privacy. I may or may not agree with the proponents of one side or the other of the abortion debate; again, I'm staying out of the specific argument. My concern lies with using the Constitution as an excuse to overturn Roe v Wade. Since Olmstead v United States in 1929, a certain guarantee of personal privacy has been given to us. I'd hate to give all that up because people are using the Constitution as the reason to overturn with Roe v Wade, when their objections are really moral not legal. If we're going to err, I'd rather it be on the side of our rights. I think perhaps even Rush Limbaugh would agree, considering his medical records. His entire argument for the privacy of his medical records was based on exactly the same combination of Amendments as Roe v Wade and the same court precedents, such as Olmstead. One should be very wary when attempting to achieve a goal at all costs, in this case the overturning of Roe v Wade, that the costs don't become a problem in themselves.

The strict constructionists have to be very careful when stepping through this minefield. Remember that nowhere in the Constitution does it specifically prohibit slavery, not until the 13th Amendment; much to the shame of this country for its first 100 years. Also, the 2nd Amendment does not specifically grant a right to keep an bear arms in those exact words. Rather it says, in only one compound sentence, the first half of which is usually conveniently ignored, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That isn't quite the same thing. To get around this (and in my view rightly so) the strict constructionists become original understanding strict interpretationists or original intent strict interpretationists instead. The original intent and/or the original understanding of the founding fathers, from all evidence available, clearly points to a simple right to keep and bear arms. This presents a problem when it comes to slavery; however. The original intent of the founding fathers was clearly to allow slavery. It took the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to correct that. And when it comes to Olmstead and Griswold and Roe v Wade and many other rulings constructing a right to privacy from combining the various Amendments, the original intent people try to become strict constructionists again. But if original intent is taken into consideration, then it's almost a certainty that a right to privacy would have been at the forefront of the Constitutional Convention, if they had known in advance of the ability of technology to intrude in on our persons, whether it be medical records or even our very identitites. I think it would be more prudent for opponents of abortion to use some other argument than the right to privacy not being specifically mentioned in the Constitution and the Amendments. That is very dangerous ground on which to tread; a mine field, as I said. Stirring up the mob with convenient interpretations to achieve a goal is dangerous. The unthinking masses start marching about parroting phrases they don't really understand, like judicial activism and or a right to privacy for one side or another. The end result is silliness like the 18th Amendment.

[Aenlic]

Oh, and I forgot to point out that it works the other way as well. The gun control people become strict constructionists when arguing against the 2nd Amendment, but many of them also then turn into original intent interpretationists when it comes to a right to privacy and Roe v Wade. It seems rather inane to try and have it both ways, no matter which side of an argument you take.

[Goofball]

Just because you--any of you--have an opinion on Abortion doesn't make it right. This is a democracy, and majority makes right.

Let me stop you right there. Majorities never make right, not even in a democracy. Yes, majority makes law, but there is a very big difference between legal and right.

There have been many things over the course of democratic history that have been legal, but arguably very wrong: segregation, slavery, selected suffrage, and yes, I'll even add abortion to the list.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The court probably overstepped in Roe v. Wade; however that does not mean that a right to privacy doesn't exist in the Constitution. Roe v Wade was not the only decision to combine the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to arrive at a concept of secure in person and personal liberty = right to privacy

In what way does killing your unborn child come under the heading of privacy?

My concern lies with using the Constitution as an excuse to overturn Roe v Wade

What was the excuse for passing Roe vs Wade?

Also, the 2nd Amendment does not specifically grant a right to keep an bear arms in those exact words

From the second amendment as quoted by you.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Thats pretty specific. As to the compound sentence its really a two part sentence saying that because a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It gives the reason , it does not limit who can bear arms as the militia was considered every able bodied man.

I'd rather it be on the side of our rights. I think perhaps even Rush Limbaugh would agree, considering his medical records. His entire argument for the privacy of his medical records was based on exactly the same combination of Amendments as Roe v Wade and the same court precedents,

This is ridiculous trying to compare killing your unborn child as somehow being the equivalent of keeping your medical records from the government.

Remember that nowhere in the Constitution does it specifically prohibit slavery,

Our founding document makes slavery unconstitutional. It took the constitution and the government time to catch up. There was never a doubt that slavery would end. In fact the only reason it wasnt put in the constitution in the first place was as a compromise to gwet the southern states to join. All men are greated equal is a pretty clear statement.

But if original intent is taken into consideration, then it's almost a certainty that a right to privacy would have been at the forefront of the Constitutional Convention, if they had known in advance of the ability of technology to intrude in on our persons, whether it be medical records or even our very identitites. I think it would be more prudent for opponents of abortion to use some other argument than the right to privacy not being specifically mentioned in the Constitution and the Amendments.

Again in what way does the right to kill your unborn child come under the privacy you claim s in the constitution. What difference does advances in spying on us have to do with this?

[Aenlic]

Well, I tried to carry on a reasoned discussion. Clearly, Gawain, you're having some difficulty comprehending my posts. You insist on misreading my posts and taking things out of context. If you happen to get a chance perhaps you'll go back and read it again. Maybe you'll stumble across the parentheses in the portion on the 2nd amendment where I point out my stance on the issue. Apparently, you've decided, without any evidence to support the conclusion, that I'm pro-choice and anti-gun, and a liberal and all manner of imagined nasty things in your dogmatic viewpoint.

Let me set you straight.

I'm anti-abortion except in cases where it's a matter of preserving the life of the mother, and even then only if all effort is made to preserve both lives and it's the decision of the family, such as might be the case when separating conjoined twins, for example. But I don't favor the idea of using the Bill of Rights to support the hyperbole from either side, whether it be pro-choice, or pro-Life. If you want to argue against abortion as killing a human and murder, then do so. Stop using the Constitutional argument of a right or not to privacy as a shield to hide behind. Argue your case from the real reasons you believe, not legalistic claptrap. Doing that is no different than misusing the Bill of Rights to decide Roe v Wade in the first place. Two wrongs don't make you right.

I'm very much pro 2nd Amendment, as you might have discovered if you had bothered to actually read my post. However, any argument for the right to keep and bear arms which ignores the first half of that compound sentence is not strict constructionist, it's original intent. When you have to explain what they meant by militia and well-ordered, then you're explaining intent. That's not strict constructionism, it's interpretive.

I'm also decidely a libertarian politically, though I'm certainly not right-wing from an economic viewpoint. I'm definitely not a liberal, considering the above two stances. I don't care whether the trampling of my liberties originates from a humanistic do-gooder or a religious do-gooder. Keep your morals out of my freedoms.

I have been arguing against the unreasoned, impassioned diatribes of people who distort fact, engage in emotional arguments, confuse morality with legality, and just generally constitute the essence of the kind of people who make up mobs, riots, and vigilantes; and why those people are the reason the framers of the Constitution put in place protections against the tyranny of the majority. Our form of democracy depends upon reasoned, considerate deliberations. The course of debate in this country is not furthered by unreasoning, emotional diatribe from true believers of any stripe, whether they be NOW placard carrying radical refugees from a Berkeley campus or starched white shirt wearing bible thumpers at a Klan rally or any slogan-spouting hot-head inbetween.

Really, if you're going to just have hysterical fits and argue against things which weren't even said, then there is little point in discussing them with you at all. Bzzzt, thanks for playing.

[Redleg]

Really, if you're going to just have hysterical fits and argue against things which weren't even said, then there is little point in discussing them with you at all. Bzzzt, thanks for playing.

Welcome to the discussion methods of the Backroom. Its not for the light of heart.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well, I tried to carry on a reasoned discussion. Clearly, Gawain, you're having some difficulty comprehending my posts.

You either have a bug up your butt or the shoe is on the other foot.

You insist on misreading my posts and taking things out of context. If you happen to get a chance perhaps you'll go back and read it again.

Not at all I understood it very well. I, just pointing out the falacies in your arguement. At least you have a very good sense of the constitution and if you wouldnt treat this persoanly we could have a very good disscussion on this as most of what you say I agree with.

Apparently, you've decided, without any evidence to support the conclusion, that I'm pro-choice and anti-gun, and a liberal and all manner of imagined nasty things in your dogmatic viewpoint.

Wrong again. From your posts I could tell you were playing shall we say devils advocate. Once more you know the constitution Ill give you that. In fact I think I had you pegged righ from the start and your own words prove it. We agree on far more than we dissagree on. Again I ask you once more lets talk this over civily.