Skip to comments.Let Roe go (A pro-abort sorta gets it)
Posted on 07/03/2018 10:35:42 AM PDT by NRx
The extent to which Roe v. Wade has come to dominate American politics can be found in the anguished cries that followed the announcement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedys retirement from the Supreme Court. There are other issues that people care about, but Roe forms the centerpiece of any discussion about what a post-Kennedy court might look like.
I am myself uneasily pro-choice. Moreover, just a few days ago, I argued that the increasingly bitter judicial wars tearing apart todays politics can only be ended with more judicial deference to legislatures and to precedent. It stands to reason that I would be dismayed by the politically electrifying prospect that Roe might be overruled entirely. But I wouldnt be dismayed. Id be glad to see Roe go, as quickly as possible.
How can someone who calls herself pro-choice oppose Roe v. Wade? Let me count the ways.
The decision itself is a poorly reasoned mess. It failed to mount a convincing case that the Constitution contains language that can be read as guaranteeing a womans right to abort her pregnancy. Nor have the subsequent courts that amended and extended Roe managed to come up with a constitutional justification; its all emanations and penumbras and similarly float-y language that did little to convince opponents that Roe v. Wade was a good or necessary ruling. Even many liberal supporters of a constitutional right to abortion have voiced concerns about the way the Burger Court got us there; those critics include Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Any doubt on that point might elicit serious skepticism about "destroying" life and liberty of babies.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoint them." - Thomas Jefferson
Wow. After having reread Roe a couple of days ago, I could have written a similar essay myself.
Even putting myself in the mindset of a pro-abort, the reasoning of Roe still looks embarrassingly bad. It looks like they started with a decision, and tried, but failed (badly) to convince that the Constitution backs it up. No discussion at all about when, in development, there appears a human being, with Constitutional rights.
I wonder what that description of her position means to her.
...with more judicial deference to legislatures and to precedent... Id be glad to see Roe go, as quickly as possible... The decision itself is a poorly reasoned mess. It failed to mount a convincing case that the Constitution contains language that can be read as guaranteeing a womans right to abort her pregnancy. Nor have the subsequent courts that amended and extended Roe managed to come up with a constitutional justification; its all emanations and penumbras and similarly float-y language that did little to convince opponents that Roe v. Wade was a good or necessary ruling. Even many liberal supporters of a constitutional right to abortion have voiced concerns about the way the Burger Court got us there; those critics include Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
My Ivy educated wife shares a similar perspective to the author. She completely understands the harm a disjointed SC decision has created. Like anyone who takes a shortcut, it's always, always comes back to bite you in the ass. Use the court to ram through by diktat, and 50 years later, you get a Trump.
This debate should have taken place in the electorate, where 300+ million people can decide for themselves within their respective state jurisdictions. And, once passed with large majorities, both the issue itself and the screwed up court process can be left to the historical record.
I just had an email from a distant cousin who was conceived because her mother was raped. She was given up for adoption at birth and her adoptive parents are dead. I was able to help her find her biological mother some months ago and they had a very joyful reunion. She, her children, and her grandchildren would not exist if her mother had been persuaded to have an abortion.
Thanks for sharing.
Nobody in their right mind can come close to interpreting that abortion is in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It’s pure insanity unless one is a Bolshevik Liberal.
I'd like to believe that, but I don't. The fact that this would be reasonable does not make it likely.
Once in awhile, I read something thoughtful (like this) from a Liberal who is not a Bolshevik. Sadly, they are now the exception and not the rule.
<>The decision itself is a poorly reasoned mess.<>
She’s right. I read it thirty years ago and remember thinking what garbage it was.
Attack Roe on its merits and it will fall.
Overturning Roe means it goes back to the states. Does Anyone really believe NY state is going to EVER outlaw baby killing?
There's a lot you can do on many fronts, much of it directly related to patient health & safety and consumer protection, even in severely pro-abort states, even if you can't do it all at once.
Roe vs. Wade was replaced by the Casey ruling of 1992.
Casey is the prevailing ruling.
All women should have to get written consent from the father of the baby with DNA testing and financial penalties for both the woman and the man who signed if the man was not the father.
Few would take the risk of being wrong.
Most would just have the baby.
I believe in banning abortion.
But technically, you don't have to ban abortion if you've made it unavailable, or --- better yet --- unthinkable.
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.