Ten Legal Reasons to Reject Roe

usccb.org ^ | Susan E. Wills, Esq.

[Tribune7]

bump

[Charles Henrickson]

1. The Court's decision in Roe v. Wade exceeded its constitutional authority.
. . . In Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, however, the Court struck down criminal laws of Texas and Georgia . . . (and those of the other 48 states). . . .
". . . to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 states are constitutionally disentitled. . . ."

This gets at the heart of the matter, constitutionally speaking. The federal government--in this case, the Supreme Court--took away the states' "right to choose," their right to choose to have laws against abortion. This, without any constitutional basis, and against the restrictions placed on the federal government in the Tenth Amendment.

There are two main arguments against abortion--constitutional and moral. Most pro-lifers know only the moral argument. We do well to know the constitutional one. This takes away the "you're just imposing your religion" line from the pro-abort crowd. Theoretically, one need not even have an opinion on the morality of abortion in order to realize that the federal government had no business overturning the laws of the several states in this matter.

If you don't know the Tenth Amendment, read it. Of course, the Tenth Amendment gets at the whole of the Big Government problem--unconstitutional federal intrusions into education, health care, pensions, etc. etc. etc.--areas where the federal government has no business.

[jwalsh07]

Best article on Roe and Doe I have seen in my time here at FR.

[Mr. Silverback]

Looks like a bookmark!

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[cpforlife.org]

Wow, and you've been here since 6-1-98

[Torie]

Bump for later.

[The_Eaglet]

Thanks for posting this. Here is another good article by Dr. Herb Titus which debunks the false premise that Roe v. Wade legal authority outside of the parties that were at suit:

It's time to denounce Roe v Wade by Dr. Herb Titus.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Wow! That is impressive. Great job! God bless you.

FReegards....

[kidd]

Thanks for this and other pings.

This is a good summary of the legal problems of the Roe v Wade decision.

Of course the moral and societal problems are huge, but this article provides reasoning that even the most avid atheist/hedonist would have trouble ignoring.

[katherineisgreat]

Excellent article. I am saving. Thanks for the ping.

[ex-snook]

The one I like best. 'Roe' did not abort, had her baby and claims she was duped. Fake cases should be reversed.

[lepton]

Among the legal scholars who have roundly criticized the Court's ruling in Roe as not being grounded in the U.S. Constitution are the following

As I recall, Ginsberg doesn't think Roe v. Wade stands Constitutionally either - though she is in support of Abortion Rights.

[freeangel]

So, what exactly is the connection with the SCOTUS and either legal or reason(ing) lately? They make up the rules that have nothing to do with the Constitution or law.

[samiam1972]

This one is definitely a keeper! Thanks!

[Outraged]

As noted above, under Roe state laws banning late-term abortions must contain a "health" exception. Health is defined in Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, as including "all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

This is why it is absolutely essential to statistically analyze women, men and relationships that have been affected by participating in murdering the unborn, as well as tightly regulating the abortion industry by demanding accountabiity.

The case can then be made, statistically and profoundly, of the serious physical, psychological and societal detriments inherent in the practice of savagely murdering a child before it exits the womb.

[murdoog]

* Six justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, unfortunately not simultaneously seated – White, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy3 and O'Connor;

It has even been criticized by Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[cpforlife.org]

^

[Jason_b]

Also interesting is that the two seem to be leaning away from the other 7. I wonder why. Trying to get away from the sulfur smell?

[Texagirl4W]

Please add me to your ping list. Thanks.

[JusPasenThru]

Bump for future reading.