Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Let Roe go (A pro-abort sorta gets it)
WaPo ^ | 07-03-2018 | Megan McArdle

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. Kennedy’s 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 today’s 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 wouldn’t be dismayed. I’d 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 woman’s right to abort her pregnancy. Nor have the subsequent courts that amended and extended Roe managed to come up with a constitutional justification; it’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 115th; 2018issues; abortion; anthonykennedy; districtofcolumbia; meganmcardle; roevswade; scotus; trumpscotus; washingtoncompost; washingtonpost
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
By no means perfect, but for someone who is pro-abortion, there are some impressive concessions and logical insights in here. This is worth reading in its entirety.
1 posted on 07/03/2018 10:35:42 AM PDT by NRx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NRx
Question for Progressive ideologues: Does the American Declaration of Independence's stated philosophy of "rights" as, "endowed by their Creator" enter into this discussion? If it does, then who can assert, with confidence, the "Creator's" decision on when those rights are endowed?

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

2 posted on 07/03/2018 10:50:11 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2
Oooops! "disjoin," not "disjoint."
3 posted on 07/03/2018 10:52:02 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NRx

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.


4 posted on 07/03/2018 11:03:14 AM PDT by rightwingcrazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx
She says she’s “uneasily pro choice,” hmmm.

I wonder what that description of her position means to her.

5 posted on 07/03/2018 11:09:17 AM PDT by zerosix (Native Sunflower..AMERICA! Designed by geniuses - now run by the idiots in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...
...with more judicial deference to legislatures and to precedent... I’d 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 woman’s right to abort her pregnancy. Nor have the subsequent courts that amended and extended Roe managed to come up with a constitutional justification; it’s 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.
Thanks NRx.

6 posted on 07/03/2018 11:13:26 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (www.tapatalk.com/groups/godsgravesglyphs/, forum.darwincentral.org, www.gopbriefingroom.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

Great quote...


7 posted on 07/03/2018 11:16:40 AM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NRx
Wait until the left wakes up and realizes that amending respective state constitutions to ensure a right to 'bodily privacy' (gender neutral) will help build the coalition they so desperately seek.

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.

8 posted on 07/03/2018 11:25:54 AM PDT by semantic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx
She thinks it is OK to kill the baby when it was the result of rape--to kill an innocent person for the crime of another. Adoption exists.

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.

9 posted on 07/03/2018 11:39:30 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Thanks for sharing.


10 posted on 07/03/2018 11:46:30 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NRx
Roe v. Wade is on life support. It will likely be overruled within three years. Blue States will guarantee a right to abortion in their State Constitutions. Red States will enshrine a right to life in their State Constitutions. Purple States will passed mixed legislation. There will be calls by both sides for Congress to get involved, but it is unlikely it will in any meaningful way.
11 posted on 07/03/2018 12:02:28 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx

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.


12 posted on 07/03/2018 12:16:54 PM PDT by shanover (...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.-S.Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17
"Roe v. Wade is on life support. It will likely be overruled within three years."

I'd like to believe that, but I don't. The fact that this would be reasonable does not make it likely.

13 posted on 07/03/2018 1:15:16 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stone cold sober, as a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: shanover
It’s pure insanity unless one is a Bolshevik Liberal.

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.

14 posted on 07/03/2018 1:30:25 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (ObaMao: Fake America, Fake Messiah, Fake Black man. How many fakes can you fit into one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NRx

<>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.


15 posted on 07/03/2018 1:45:43 PM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx

Overturning Roe means it goes back to the states. Does Anyone really believe NY state is going to EVER outlaw baby killing?


16 posted on 07/03/2018 1:51:40 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Yes, but incrementally.

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.

17 posted on 07/03/2018 3:13:24 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stone cold sober, as a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NRx
Roe vs. Wade is shorthand for rulings that claim a right to abortion.

Roe vs. Wade was replaced by the Casey ruling of 1992.

Casey is the prevailing ruling.

18 posted on 07/03/2018 5:08:07 PM PDT by Architect of Avalon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

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.


19 posted on 07/03/2018 5:11:03 PM PDT by Architect of Avalon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Architect of Avalon
Great idea. We'll add it to the list!

I believe in banning abortion.

But technically, you don't have to ban abortion if you've made it unavailable, or --- better yet --- unthinkable.

20 posted on 07/03/2018 5:18:56 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stone cold sober, as a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson