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 ...
I don’t know why Pro-aborts are so concerned. Abortion is here to stay. If Roe v Wade were gone, many states would guarantee abortion rights. And in the others there will be doctors who will perform D&Cs for blighted ova and other early miscarriages and no one will be the wiser.
What if the Court extended the notion of natural personhood to the unborn? Wouldn’t the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendments protect the unborn from being killed?
You are exactly right.
Human being = legal person.
That would be the most perfect conformity with reality, because neither reality, NOR THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, provide any warrant for separating the concepts “human being” and “person.” Reality and Constitution (especially read in its essential context, the Declaration of Independence) find “human” and “person” co-extensive.
Human rights begin where human life begin.
And human life begins at the beginning.
However, we may not be able to get there (politically) all in one jump, since our system of law depends on the more-or-less contemporaneous consent of the governed.
Hence the incremental approach, where each step practically necessitates the next one.
It has always been a States’ issue and I think we are heading back to make it one again.
While it’s true that states might guarantee these rights, it is not true that doctors will behave in the fashion you suggest. The facts: Abortionists (who are usually primary-care trained) make more money than even the most talented and highly-trained specialty surgeons. Abortion is a cash business—the MDs bring in a million a year. Even with that money, finding an MD willing to do it is hard. What you suggest would cost a doctor his license, for very little financial reward. Ridiculous suggestion.
It is NOT RIDICULOUS at all. Doctors have been performing abortions as D&Cs since the early mid 20th century at least. No one would ever know, unless an actual pregnant woman who wanted to abort and still hurt the doctor set him up. When one of our recent Presidents got his girlfriend knocked up this is how it was resolved back in the 1960s.
It would take a certain kind of doctor to break laws and do it, but they are out there. Please remember that we are talking about doctors who performed abortions several times a week until their state chose to make it illegal. So this doctor would have sympathy for the patients who are in this predicament he used to solve so easily. You see?
She's honest.
Lots of people call themselves "pro life" up until the point they're faced with an unwanted pregnancy. Maybe their teen daughter gets knocked up by a guy with gold teeth and a face tattoo. Or the wife had a drunken affair on a business trip. Or their birth control failed. Or the baby is severely malformed. Or they can visualize any of these things happening. And on and on. At this point, they become "uneasily" pro choice.
There's more of these people out there than many realize. That's why abortion is still the law of the land. Because people generally want it to be, even if it makes them "uneasy."
That is one factor.
Another is that many, including many conservatives, naively believe that the SCOTUS wouod not knowingly perpetrate a blatant legal fraud, and that SCOTUS actually is Constitutionally endowed with the power it now wields.
Academia and media have both promulgated these lies for generatiins.
This is the original reason I was against Roe vs. Wade, and countless other similarly outrageous abuses of Power by federal employees.
My favorite one is the one where they repealed the 11th Amendment by holding two mutually exclusive positions about the status a state government employee they wished to command.
The first and most significant alleged power grab of the federal court was Madison vs. Mayberry.
I say alleged because if you actually read the ruling you will notice one glaring fact that the modern Court overlooks in order to have their way on the constition. Mayberry never got his writ despite the court judging he was entitled to it.
If anything that proves that the federal court is but one of three branches of the federal government it cannot command the actions of the other two it can merely nullify the effect of their actions.
That means Mayberry doesn’t get his writ the court ‘judged’ he was entitled to because the court cannot command the executive to give it to him.
They can only judge him innocent if he were charged with a crime.
This is why the aforementioned 11th Amendment is so important to keeping the feds out of state government, and why they had to repeal it to rule the states in the 20th Century.
The practice of selling of baby body parts is also a reason we can come together for some abortion limitations.
However militant pro-abortion activists will allow for no limits whatsoever regardless of the conditions.
I and other prolife friends aren’t rigid, while pro aborts aren’t the slightest willing to admit such things as partial birth abortion should be eliminated forever. There is no medical reason for it regardless of any reasoning.
How does the pregnant woman find such a doctor? On yelp? And, the doctor wouldn’t make money on it because a legit physician has so few transactions that don’t go through insurance. There is no incentive here for a doctor TO RISK HIS LICENSE.
I agree.
I think most Americans support restrictions on abortion but don't want a total ban. Yet even the most modest restriction brings out angry feminists waving coat hangers! And the Democrats who support them are never called to task over it. Their position of "anytime, anywhere, for any reason" is no less extreme to Americans that a total ban but they never have to explain their position.
Somehow, I’m not explaining this well.
Today, there may be a doctor who performs abortions on his patients if they decide to get one. Not a PP doctor, just an OBGYN who takes care of those kinds of “problems” for his patients. It happens without fanfare.
If abortion were made illegal, do you think this doctor will refuse his patients abortions that clearly he is not morally opposed to perform today? Maybe some would, but many would not. They just give it a different code. Their patient doesn’t want to continue the pregnancy that is from the wrong man, or shows a baby with deformities. And they call it a miscarriage and D&C.
You have to think in terms of the doctors everywhere today who routinely perform abortions.
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.