Why Roe v. Wade is a travesty of constitutional law

New York Post ^ | July 7, 2018 | Rich Lowry

[TBP]

Roe is judicially wrought social legislation pretending to the status of constitutional law. It is more adventurous than Miranda and Griswold, other watchwords of judicial activism from its era. It is as much a highhanded attempt to impose a settlement on a hotly contested political question as the abhorrent Dred Scott decision denying the rights of blacks.

It is, in short, a travesty that a constitutionalist Supreme Court should excise from its body of work with all due haste.

Roe has been commonly misunderstood since it was handed down in 1973, in part because its supporters have been so determined to obscure its radicalism. It is commonly thought that Roe only prohibits restrictions on abortion in the first trimester, when it effectively forbids them at any time, imposing a pro-abortion regime as sweeping as anywhere in the advanced world.

[Elsie]

What it says is that effectively an unborn person has no rights that it's mother is bound to respect.

What it MEANS is that the unborn HUMAN is NOT a 'person'; but a blob of flesh.

An unborn eagle has WAY more 'rights' than a unborn human.

---

 

 

 

 (

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html)

[Yaelle]

It’s a good article. Roe v Wade is terrible law.

But overturning it will probably stop 0 abortions. Being realistic, abortion is here to stay. Like murder and rape, I personally want there to be far less of them. But abortions would be here to stay even if all 50 states outlawed them.

[ro_dreaming]

One would logically determine that a United States Bill of Rights would apply to Unites States citizens, and not, say, citizens of Costa Rica, Cuba, Zimbabwe, etc.

[OIFVeteran]

That is the argument I heard recently from a pro-choicer. That under the 14th Amendment (all persons born etc.) the fetus is not a citizen and therefore has no constitutional rights. The mother is a citizen and therefore has the right to determine what medical procedures are best for her. I haven’t really come up with a good rebuttal to that one yet.

This is why I would like to see a constitutional amendment stating that life begins at conception. As far as I know there has been no attempt at this.

[yoe]

"It is, in short, a travesty that a constitutionalist Supreme Court should excise from its body of work with all due haste."

Making RvW the cornerstone for nominating a judge to our Supreme Court, is beyond shortsighted...Protecting women's rights is horse puckie. RVW instead enables the sale of Baby Parts as one of the non-constitutional elements making the taxpayer party to this abomination. Snow and Murkowski only want the woman's vote...surely they are smart enough to see RvW is in it's entirety is Unconstitutional.

Special interests have no place in the SCOTUS.

[hinckley buzzard]

Close, but no. The argument is about “personhood” not citizenship. Roe depends on the ruling that an unborn child is not a “person.” Citizenship is not relevant, as the case about an illegal alien getting an abortion makes clear.