”… —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.
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.