The Abortion Showdown

greeaaaattt.

that means at some point today i'm going to hear from my mom, she'll be all excited.

maybe she'll even move to south dakota or mississippi. hmm.

 

Quite frankly, I'm not sure which is more disturbing, this, or when the SCOTUS ruled the land you own can be TAKEN from you for the greater good of the public...

 

It's funny how such an "unimportant" issue can get such overwhelming attention. It's like we can't help but poke it. I would prefer if our siciety spent more time on the large issues like poverty, helath care, education, racism, fundamentalism and the environment and less time on fringe issues.

To me the question about abortion comes down to personal choice. I don't think the goverment should be involved in that, the same way I don't think the goverment should be involved in my choice of life partner. That said I would personally not want an abortion nor would I choice to spend my life with another man. But that is me, my choice and my beliefs and other poeple should be allowed theirs. I fail to see how someone else having an abortion have an direct impact on my life.

 

Do you see how someone else killing their babies after they're born has a direct impact on your life?

 

Once Scalito was confirmed, I commented to one of my friends, "I'll bet you 50 bucks that RvW will be overturned within 5 years." Looks like I was way over on my estimate.

<sigh>

 

If I remember correctly, Roe v. Wade invalidated the state's right to restrict abortion. If it gets overturned, then the right of abortion goes back to the states. So, women in NY and Massachusetts will have their right to an abortion, while Mississippi and SD won't.

 

Yep. IANAL, but that was what I thought RvW said, too. I imagine that's what the South Dakota argument will be: "The federal gov't doesn't have a right to regulate this; it's a state issue."

We'll see, though; maybe it'll be more severe than that.

 

Will it be OK for SD border patrols to check all cars for women who were pregnant when they left but not pregnant (and no baby) when they come back?

That's where it'll have to go, otherwise no local anti-abortion law will have any impact. And then SCOTUS will have to allow such patrols, in keeping with the foolishness that would overturn Roe...

 

And what about patrolling closets for rusty hangers? I think that passing such a law is in fact endangering the lives of would-be mothers.

 

I'm not saying that I know whether or not a fetus should have rights, but if I was scared of this "slippery slope"....

We have to draw the line somewhere.

I think there is more to it than...If you don't give them condoms, they'll have unprotected sex. If you don't allow abortions, they'll use "rusty" coat-hangers. If abortions cost $500, they'll use "rusty" coat-hangers. If you don't allow them to set off the fatal gas canister in the mall with 900 people, you won't find the other 21 canisters. If you give them one right, they'll demand another.

Is it a personal choice whether something is a personal choice or not?

I'm a guy, so I know this is all falling on deaf ears anyway, I guess that's why I thought I could ramble.

 

That is essentially correct. Roe v. Wade basically told the states that they couldn't regulate abortion, because a higher right in the constitution took precedence. This all goes back to a 1965 decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court decided that state laws making birth control illegal were not constitutional because they invaded an inherent right to privacy in personal decisions that they interpreted were granted by the constitution. It gets a bit fuzzy where exactly the constitution grants this right to privacy, as it doesn't explicitly do this. Some justices believe that the ninth amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."), which essentially says that the bill of rights isn't limited to just what is in the bill of rights, and that the citizens have other rights not explicitely specified. Other justices believed that substantive due process can be applied here, essentially stating that Americans have the rights implied by "ordered liberty", or have rights solely because they've already enjoyed those rights previously.

Griswold v. Connecticut was cited as precedent in Roe v. Wade. The justices found multiple reasons that the right to an abortion should be protected by the constitution, as thay had birth control in Griswold. Now that you know about Griswold and privacy, though, you understand why all those senators were asking Roberts and Alito whether or not they believed that the constitution contained a right to privacy, eh?

Where does that leave us? The constitution doesn't state that abortions are a protected right, as the founding fathers probably never envisioned that it would be an issue. Courts have found that it is a protected right based on what I've cited above.

There are two type of constitutional conflicts here. The first is, does the federal government have an explicit right to regulate abortions. The answer is no. Strict constitutionalists generally feel this means that the states have the right to regulate abortion, as the constitution grants all rights not stated to the states themselves. Most pro-lifers cite this, but they tend not to really understand the subtle points of constitutional law, including the ninth amendment. A point to consider - the constitution doesn't state that the federal government can regulate food products and drugs nationwide, but they do. If the constitution is this strict, the FDA couldn't exist, as with most other government agencies.

The second point is murky... should people have the right to do something that they've been allowed to do for years? Can the government 'remove' a long-held right, even if that right isn't in the constitution? The ninth amendment, and substantive due process say that they really can't. Now, again, this is murky and open to interpretation, but since the right has been granted for the past 30 some years, one could easily consider that this right has gained a level of precedence, even if the original decision's logic is reversed.

Bear in mind, that this is a right of the people under the ninth amendment, not a right of the states themselves. A state can't pass an unconstitutional law any more than the federal government can. If the ninth amendment is interpreted as it historically has been, this isn't a case of states rights trumping federal rights at all.

This is all very complex. We're talking about things that the constitution doesn't specifically say, that there are things in our lives that many of us believe that the federal government or the states simply shouldn't be involved in. Whatever your view of abortion, one has to consider the possible legal ramifications of overturning Roe v. Wade. It would negate much of the court's precedents on the ninth amendment, and would likely cause other 'rights' we believe we have to be challenged.

Now, do I support abortion? I don't really know. I do believe that the decision should be left up to the individual involved, and that the man should have 49.9% of the vote, with the 50.1% going to the woman involved. Having a baby affects a woman's life and body much more than the man she is involved with... the final decision should always rest with her, but I'd like to see her be open to her partner's input. Being a man, I've never personally had to make that final decision, and don't honestly know what I would decide if the decision were really mine to make. Does that make me pro-life or pro-choice? I believe you can probably be both... pro-life personally, but pro-choice overall. I don't believe, however, that the decision should be left to the state or the federal government. Frankly, it isn't their body.

Dan

 

Oh, one last point. Back in about 1990, Nevada passed a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion within the state. The backers of the amendment predicted that Roe v. Wade was in danger of being overturned someday, and wanted to make sure the right was constitutionally granted in the event that Roe v. Wade went down.

I would make the prediction that there will be a surge in 'abortion tourism' to states like Nevada if Roe v. Wade is overturned, similar to the way people used to travel for abortions before Roe v. Wade was enacted. Remember when people used to travel to Nevada for quickie divorces back in the 30's?

Medically, this probably isn't a good thing. Something to think about, though.

Dan

 

Dan, you make a reasoned analysis of the law. Unfortunately, that has no bearing on the upcoming decisions.

The court now has many memebrs who are epitomize the "activist judges" the right loathes so much. That is, unless the activism supports their right-wing views. These justices will stretch the law as far as they have to to cherry-pick rulings and cases in order to satisfy their already-made-up mind.

The most important role a President has, after Commander in Chief, is the appointer of justices to the Supreme Court.

We will now see the damage done by the religious right play out for at least another generation of victims.

I can only hope there is a huge sociological trend toward teen pregnancy in rich white demographics, so that there will be pressure to change the uipcoming abortion bans. Until it hits home, these whackos are fine with telling others what they can or can't do to their body. Hypocrites that they are, today the party of "less Government" wants to insert themselves between doctors and patients, and into the bedroom.

But when it becomes THEIR doctor and THEIR bedroom, they will retrench.

Speed the day! Screw a RWR (Rich white Republican)!

 

"Medically, this probably isn't a good thing."

Socially, it is DEFINITELY not a good thing. Since generally speaking, only rich white people will have the means to travel and use an out of state doctor, this practice should be challenged under the equal protection clause.

 

Someone else having an abortion or killing babies does affect my
life, because we desperately need to get the world population back
down to a billion or two where it belongs to have any hope of
sustainability.
.
_H*

 

Me personally, Pro-Choice . . . that is as long as not one dime of tax money is ever spent on performing abortions. If you want government to stay out of the business of limiting reproductive rights, you should also accept that government should not be in the business of paying for abortions either.

I think it would be funny if the “new, dangerous, conservative†Supreme Court revisited Roe v. Wade and left is standing. NARAL and that ilk of - "we are ignorant on every other issue" - pro-choice voters would look like a bunch of Chicken Littles.

A politician's stance on abortion issues is way down on my list of concerns. Check out NARAL's Congressional Record on Choice web page. I would feel much more comfortable voting for someone whos score is neither 0% or 100%. That tells me they think for themself and are not just some party line voting wonk!

 

Thanks for the complement. I fear that you are correct in the rest of your comments, though.

Your point on the equal protection clause is interesting, as it does mean that access to safe abortions will generally be limited to only those that can afford travel. Unsafe abortions will continue to be performed... back before Roe v. Wade, back alley abortions (often performed by ex-med students with sub-par equipment in unsanitary conditions) were an often used alternative which cost women their lives. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, we're likely to see that occur again.

One has to question the anti-abortion movement. I've met and discussed these issues with many of them, and generally they are against all abortions, even if the mother's life is in danger. The same people seem to also be against birth control in general, against sex education, and only want to promote abstinence. It would seem that if someone was really interested in reducing the number of abortions, they would support both sex education and increased distribution of birth control.

Dan

 

That argument is so not valid.</span> :angry:
IF it ever came to the point where abortions were available only on a state by state basis, don't you think NARAL and themz would start a <span style=\'color:green\'>National Abortion Access for All Fund and quickly fill it with millions and millions of dollars in donations for those who are financially in need?

I can see it now. A national chain of Planned Parenthood/NARAL abortion clinic/overnight recovery centers – complete with complimentary shuttle rides to and from the nearest Greyhound bus stations.

I'll donate! But can I designate exactly the type of person I wish the abortion to be preformed on? [just kidding . . . but those ethical questions have also been raised. Is providing free abortions to the poor a form of discrimination?]