A real look at Roe v. Wade

satv365 · #41 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marmalade6

Your post is certainly contradictory... the constitution says but doesn't say....

Of course the court should reflect political opinion. Our laws are a living body and reflect the concerns of the era. One would only wish that a permanent right of choice would become the standard for women, without the interference of mythical religious pronouncements and expectations, or feelings of entitlement from males.

I've said before that abortion is a take it or leave it issue with me. What my whole qualm about this is...

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE A RIGHT OR DENIAL OF ABORTION!!

If you want that right, lobby for an amendment. Do not legislating judges to virtually give the nod to rewrite the Constitution to fit the moods of a partisan supreme court.

In all legality, the Supreme Court was wrong. As they have been many times. We need to rethink how we view the Supreme Court. Not as a legislative body. But as a body to determine the law based on the actual, very limited powers of Congress, not to mention a very specific constitution that clearly indicates what the Government can and can not do, in regards to the more important things. Other silly shit, like Abortion could best be solved with State Legislatures and Women keeping there worn out vagina's to themselves.

Cookie Parker · #42 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satv365

I've said before that abortion is a take it or leave it issue with me. What my whole qualm about this is...

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE A RIGHT OR DENIAL OF ABORTION!!

If you want that right, lobby for an amendment. Do not legislating judges to virtually give the nod to rewrite the Constitution to fit the moods of a partisan supreme court.

In all legality, the Supreme Court was wrong. As they have been many times. We need to rethink how we view the Supreme Court. Not as a legislative body. But as a body to determine the law based on the actual, very limited powers of Congress, not to mention a very specific constitution that clearly indicates what the Government can and can not do, in regards to the more important things. Other silly shit, like Abortion could best be solved with State Legislatures and Women keeping there worn out vagina's to themselves.

Roe v Wade was based upon, as are all decision rendered by the Supreme Court to date, the constitution. What part of the information that I presented did you miss from that?

Here's something which may give you a background into why it is constitutional...

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Quote:

A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does' complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross- appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford.

Held:
1. While 28 U. S. C. § 1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is not foreclosed when the case is properly before the Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. P. 123.
2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.
(a) Contrary to appellee's contention, the natural termination of Roe's pregnancy did not moot her suit. Litigation involving pregnancy, which is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy [p114] must exist at review stages and not simply when the action is initiated. Pp. 124-125.
(b) The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good-faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66. Pp. 125-127.
(c) The Does' complaint, based as it is on contingencies, any one or more of which may not occur, is too speculative to present an actual case or controversy. Pp. 127-129.
3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life- saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.
5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling [p115] that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional. P. 166.
314 F. Supp. 1217, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Sarah Weddington reargued the cause for appellants. With her on the briefs were Roy Lucas, Fred Bruner, Roy L. Merrill, Jr., and Norman Dorsen.

Robert C. Flowers, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for appellee on the reargument. Jay Floyd, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellee on the original argument. With them on the brief were Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, Alfred Walker, Executive Assistant Attorney General, Henry Wade, and John B. Tolle.*

[Blackmun, J. -- Opinion of the Court]
[Stewart, J. -- Concurring opinion]
[Rehnquist, J. -- Dissenting opinion]
[Burger, C. J. -- Concurring (both Roe and Doe)]
[Douglas, J. -- Concurring (both Roe and Doe)]
[White, J. -- Dissenting (both Roe and Doe)]

[Transcript of Oral Arguments (#1) (#2)]

See? You cannot state that a case which goes before the Supreme Court and is rendered a decision has no constitutional leg to stand on...of course it does...that's what the Supreme court decides...constitutional issues within the law.

36shadow · #43 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookie Parker

No, I look at the poster, the quality of the post, see if there is anything there as far as a concrete discussion goes and if not, simply answer in kind.

When and if you want to discuss this from the basis of the Roe v. Wade decision, then let's move on. I'm not interested in your opinions. I can see you opinions, but they don't overturn Roe v. Wade, nor do they have an impact on what occurred prior to Roe v. Wade.

The whole premis of roe v wade decision is a womens constitutinal right to choose. Yea or ney. If so then the court making abortion legal is a moral issue to be decided by the states. They do not have the power to legislate let alone legislate morality. The constitution gives only congress the power to legislate. For the fact that a woman has the power to choose prior to conception to exclude those things out of her power as in molestation or rape. Is that not simple enough for you. show me specificaly where in the constitution that it says or gives a woman the right to an abortion. If your only arguement is there right to choose well anti abortion laws do not take that away unless it is a victim or molestation,rape or a pregnancy that endangers the life of the woman. Failed contraception and they want to abort hey everyone knows that contraception is not 100% so if they want to screw with that in mind that is their CHOICE IT IS ALSO THE WOMANS CHOICE NOT TO TAKE THAT CHANCE.

ONEWHITEDUCK · #44 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 03:54 PM

Live Search: ABORTION IS KILLING FOR SATANIC SACRIFICE

Abortion Industry Staff
Testimonies of former abortion providers. Love of money ... ethical to legalize the freedom of a person by killing ... convinced an amoral society to endorse their satanic sacrifice.

Conspiracy Planet - Beyond the Beyond - Nick Berg Murder-Sacrifice ...
Abortion Industry/ Human Organ Trade: AIDS: Al Martin: Alan Cantwell: Arnie ... Nick Berg Murder-Sacrifice: Satanic Ritual Killing by WIOLAWAPRESS.COM

GERALDO RIVERA'S INFLUENCE ON THE SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE AND RECOVERED ...
Abortion: Assisted suicide: Cloning: Death penalty: Environment ... infants, breeding of babies for later sacrifice during Satanic rituals ... including members of the Church of Satan, were killing ...

Print Page - Abortion: Killing Life Or Saving It?
... that you should be able to give up such a small sacrifice ... Abortion: Killing Life Or Saving It? Post by: cheer_up_emo_kidx0x on ... Goat sellers aren't very useful in Satanic rituals ...

Abortion and Genocide!
... wealth they desired to maintain. Killing ... ABORTION : The heathen sacrifice of a child to the god of convenience ... Abortion Ceremonies are Satanic! | Abortuaries!

I was told to antagonize the pro-lifers and I made the girls ...
... January 1998: An unidentified person bombs a Birmingham, Alabama abortion mill, killing an ... with animal blood and entrails that appeared to be the products of Satanic sacrifices. ...

www.abortionviolence.com/0.HTM · Cached page

StormanNorman · #45 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 36shadow

The whole premis of roe v wade decision is a womens constitutinal right to choose. Yea or ney. If so then the court making abortion legal is a moral issue to be decided by the states. They do not have the power to legislate let alone legislate morality. The constitution gives only congress the power to legislate. For the fact that a woman has the power to choose prior to conception to exclude those things out of her power as in molestation or rape. Is that not simple enough for you.

Originally, I thought that it should be a state issue as well, but, based on my more recent understanding of US law, it seems that it may fall under federal jurisdiction. The reason being is again.....it's a battle between rights laid out in the Constitution. You have a woman's right to privacy (non-numerated right) vs. the unborn's right to life. I believe that if there is to be a balancing act between Constitutional rights, it should be applied universally......in each state. And the federal courts are mandated with interpreting the correct balance based on the Constitution and relevant case law.

36shadow · #46 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Originally, I thought that it should be a state issue as well, but, based on my more recent understanding of US law, it seems that it may fall under federal jurisdiction. The reason being is again.....it's a battle between rights laid out in the Constitution. You have a woman's right to privacy (non-numerated right) vs. the unborn's right to life. I believe that if there is to be a balancing act between Constitutional rights, it should be applied universally......in each state. And the federal courts are mandated with interpreting the correct balance based on the Constitution and relevant case law.

Tell me then how does it become a right of privacy when at first it was a right to choose. If it was a right to privacy then a parents right to spank their kid in their home should be protected etc. etc. I fail to see how a womans right to privacy is violated when her and a man decide to have sex with out protection or protection that could fail and result in pregnancy the choice is made before the act.

Cookie Parker · #47 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 36shadow

The whole premis of roe v wade decision is a womens constitutinal right to choose. Yea or ney. If so then the court making abortion legal is a moral issue to be decided by the states. They do not have the power to legislate let alone legislate morality. The constitution gives only congress the power to legislate. For the fact that a woman has the power to choose prior to conception to exclude those things out of her power as in molestation or rape. Is that not simple enough for you. show me specificaly where in the constitution that it says or gives a woman the right to an abortion. If your only arguement is there right to choose well anti abortion laws do not take that away unless it is a victim or molestation,rape or a pregnancy that endangers the life of the woman. Failed contraception and they want to abort hey everyone knows that contraception is not 100% so if they want to screw with that in mind that is their CHOICE IT IS ALSO THE WOMANS CHOICE NOT TO TAKE THAT CHANCE.

No, actually, because the state denied the right, the case was taken throught the courts to the US Supreme court....that's where it belonged, or it would have been thrown out.

And I won't argue your emotion..let's castrate men and then a woman wouldn't have to decide...

Cookie Parker · #48 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 36shadow

Tell me then how does it become a right of privacy when at first it was a right to choose. If it was a right to privacy then a parents right to spank their kid in their home should be protected etc. etc. I fail to see how a womans right to privacy is violated when her and a man decide to have sex with out protection or protection that could fail and result in pregnancy the choice is made before the act.

It became a right to choice when the anti-choice people came up to challenge it...it is basically what it is...tell me this...why didn't the anti-choice people bring it up as it was originally stated...anti-right to privacy?

Cookie Parker · #49 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 36shadow

The whole premis of roe v wade decision is a womens constitutinal right to choose. Yea or ney. If so then the court making abortion legal is a moral issue to be decided by the states. They do not have the power to legislate let alone legislate morality. The constitution gives only congress the power to legislate. For the fact that a woman has the power to choose prior to conception to exclude those things out of her power as in molestation or rape. Is that not simple enough for you. show me specificaly where in the constitution that it says or gives a woman the right to an abortion. If your only arguement is there right to choose well anti abortion laws do not take that away unless it is a victim or molestation,rape or a pregnancy that endangers the life of the woman. Failed contraception and they want to abort hey everyone knows that contraception is not 100% so if they want to screw with that in mind that is their CHOICE IT IS ALSO THE WOMANS CHOICE NOT TO TAKE THAT CHANCE.

It's the court's decision to render verdicts on court cases, which this was, when there is a dispute as to the constitutionality...and they did.

36shadow · #50 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookie Parker

It became a right to choice when the anti-choice people came up to challenge it...it is basically what it is...tell me this...why didn't the anti-choice people bring it up as it was originally stated...anti-right to privacy?

catrate men so women don't have to take responsability for their actions that is not a wacked left wing stance. That is like saying lets kill the children so the parent don't have to beat them or spank them. How in reality not the bullshit symantics of law does it become a privacy issue? See with remarks like that you should let someone like storman talk for you he hits things head on and can debate an issue rather than come in with assanine comments like that.