Posted on 05/03/2015 11:00:50 AM PDT by re_tail20
January 22, 1973 is the date that most associate with Roe v. Wade. That is the day when Justice Harry Blackmun read a summary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe and that of its companion case, Doe v. Bolton. Every year there are demonstrations in Washington on January 22 to commemorate or protest the Supreme Court’s decision recognizing a woman’s right to an abortion.
But there is another date that actually might be far more significant in the history of these decisions: May 25, 1972. That is when these cases should have been decided, and likely were decided, but in a much different form. And if they had come down in May or June 1972, the arc of American politics would have been remarkably different. I argue as much in my new book, January 1973, Watergate, Roe v. Wade, Vietnam, and the Month that Changed America Forever (release date May 1, 2015).
First, let me identify my source. Larry Hammond was Justice Lewis F. Powell’s law clerk at the time Roe and Doe were decided. Hammond, now in his seventies, agreed to talk with me about how the decisions came about and I believe I am the first to interview him with the full benefit of the Powell Papers that were released after Powell’s death in 1998.
Here are the two revelations from these interviews and the Powell Papers that will surprise most people: (1) the justices of the Supreme Court had reached a majority on versions of the opinions that Blackmun first drafted in May 1972—and these drafts would have left it to the states to draw the line as to when life begins; and (2) Justice Powell, not Justice Blackmun, pushed for the “viability” standard that remains the hallmark of Roe forty years later...
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Funny how “viability” is ignored by the Pro Aborts who love to tout Roe v Wade as a Constitutional Right to Abortion up to the moment of Birth.
With today’s advances in Preemie Care, the Viability of the Fetus (Baby) limits Roe v Wade to First Trimester Abortions, but you will never hear that discussed in the Media.
Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz should be asked to define “Viability”.
“Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz should be asked to define “Viability”.”
She’s not viable enough to do that.
The names of these justices should be spit out with contempt and disgust, and these justices are comparable to other murderers guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity.
5-4 = “law” Settled. Mandatory death for 63 million innocent taxpayers, brothers, sisters, and workers and grandmothers and grandfathers. (For Rowe v Wade)
But today, when the Justices see Gore v Bush (FL, 2000) or a simple case like Hobby Lobby or Groton/New London property seizure law, the liberals scream bloody murder.
In my own mind, I am certain that Roe V. Wade was decided by people unknown to me well before the case even originated. They were simply waiting for those on that side to bring a case so they could make it official.
Vedic teachings take the position that the life force enters the embryo at conception, but the soul enters the body in the fourth to fifth month, simply because it takes that long for the body to develop to the point where it can contain the human soul. On the other hand, abortion before the soul enters is seen as extremely dangerous to the life force of the mother, because that developing fetus is enormously interconnected on an energy level with the mother even before the soul enters it. Simply removing the un-souled fetus therefore is equivalent to ripping out an entire section of a live-wired circuit - you can short out the whole thing and badly, permanently harm the mother or even kill her - she'll never be the same again. And alternately, doing it after the soul arrives adds murder to the mix.
Mr. EPA Nixon was one of the worst presidents we've had in the 20th century, right there with Wilson, Hoover, Carter, LBJ, Clinton and Obama.
” Mandatory death for 63 million innocent taxpayers, brothers, sisters, and workers and grandmothers and grandfathers.”
____________
The viability standards was adopted because until that point there is no life. No life, no death. Or so goes the reasoning of the court. Roe recognizes the sanctity of life, and the government’s interest in preserving it, it just does not recognize life until viability.
I heard a Constitutional scholar once make a passing remark that in reality the Roe decision applied to that person only and not to every woman in the US who wanted an abortion and did not in actual fact make abortion legal for everyone. I did not get the chance to ask her about that statement and have never researched it but I was very puzzled at the time.
”… —and these drafts would have left it to the states to draw the line as to when life begins; ..."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
As FReepers read this post about abortion, please bear in mind that vote-winning abortion rights would probably not be legal in all (most?) states today if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified. More on this later.
The major constitutional problem when activist justices decided Roe v. Wade is that they did not do their job to provide an honest interpretation of the Constitution when they decided that case against Texas imo.
More specifically, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect abortion as a right, thug justices had no constitutionally enumerated right to apply to the states via the 14th Amendments, the states therefore free to prohibit abortion imo.
Sadly, the reason that institutionally indoctrinated justices got away with legislating the so-called “right” to have an abortion from the bench is the following imo. Many generations of parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught about the Constitution, particularly 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus PC, constitutionally unprotected“ rights” as in the case of abortion.
Getting back to the 17th Amendment, there would probably have been all diffenent faces on the Supreme Court when Roe v. Wade was decided, the Court probably comprised of justices reflecting the God-fearing, family values of the federal senators who confirmed them, senators likewise reflecting the values of the state lawmakers who uniquely elect them.
And if such was the case then the Supreme Court would likely have decided Roe v. Wade in Texas’s favor imo.
Also note that until the states should choose to amend the Constitution to prohibit abortion, the so-called “right” to have an abortion remains up to the individual states.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and activist justices along with it.
All this discussion forgets one thing...,abortion is the killing of a growing human being. Those judges who decided this case forgot that the God who made them is in charge. He decides what is real. They don’t. All the talk about viability is silly. What matters is when the two adults involved decide they are going to make themselves feel good, they are exposing themselves to responsibility to be adults and may be creating a child. I have a saying that ‘the choice is Friday night not Saturday morning’.
Seven justices, in their arrogance, made a decision which is affecting the lives of millions of people. It will take a lot to correct. It will take clear thought and a modicum of morality. When people wake up to what they have let be happening, there will be much sorrow.
Who is more morally corrupt, the German people of the 1930s, or the American people today?
The German people had sufficient moral sense that Hitler felt he needed to conceal his death camps. America’s death camps have been listed in the Yellow Pages for 45 years.
Only a few thousand SS men ran Hitler’s death camps. About 100 million men and women have murdered babies in America.
Interference with Hitler’s death camps meant death. Interference with America’s death camps meant arrest for trespassing.
Rush actually talked about this about a month ago. He was talking about some back-room Liberal strategists trying to rework the Hobby Lobby and other Religious Test cases to be actually specific to those for whom the decision was made, but not an across-the-board precedent. With that said, Rush said - ‘Fine, then what about Abortion, Liberals, Hmm???’
I TOTALLY agree with you.
The author’s attempt at a consequential moral to this story:
“But more importantly, because abortion is an issue about which many will not compromise—it is a life and death decision to some—the whole concept of “no compromise” as a political strategy entered our political bloodstream.
One might ask him how “compromise” worked out as a way of dealing with factions in a nations divided on the question of slavery. I’d contend on issues addressing the most fundamental understanding of what constitutes a human being and what rights are essential to those humans, “compromise” is unlikely to be a successful solution, and that realization was reached in this country more than a century prior to Rove v. Wade.
If LBJ had had more SC picks, the pro-abortion vote might have been more lopsided. Earl Warren might have still be on the court instead of Burger (he waited to retire when there was a Republican President).
Roe vs. Wade was a "simple" case.
It only involved at the time, Texas.
So a "correct" decision would have been: The states have the right to determine their own abortion laws.
Within reason.
A simple 10th amendment ruling.
INSTEAD, Harry Blackmun said: OK, get out your pencils, I'm going to tell you how it's going down.
First trimester: no restrictions. Second trimester maybe some restrictions. Third trimester, the states can be allowed to enact some laws.
But that doesn't matter, as Doe V. Bolton rendered THAT moot.
So long as a woman "feels" like she needs an abortion she can have one.
A terrible, and illogical decision that has haunted us for 42 years.
No he didn’t.
LBJ wanted to promote Abe Fortas, no?
And promote Homer Thornberry to the Fortas seat?
But then scandals came out about Fortas (I don’t recall what they were) and the nomination was withdrawn and Fortas resigned as associate justice as well.
Nixon got to replace Warren and Fortas.
Harry Blackmun was not Nixon’s first choice to fill the Fortas seat. At least two southerners were floated. Democrats called one of them “mediocre.” Roman Hruska (R-Neb.) said that even mediocre Americans deserved representation on the High Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.