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.
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.
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.
<>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?
Roe vs. Wade was replaced by the Casey ruling of 1992.
Casey is the prevailing ruling.
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My favorite one is the one where they repealed the 11th Amendment by holding two mutually exclusive positions about the status a state government employee they wished to command.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.