A real look at Roe v. Wade

Cookie Parker · #1 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 06:53 AM

Since Roe v. Wade: American Public Opinion and Law on Abortion

. . .

Quote:

The content of Roe v. Wade and other cases, as summarized in "U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Concerning Reproductive Rights 1965-2003," is examined historically. In Roe, by a vote of 7-2, the Court invalidated a Texas law prohibiting abortions not necessary to save the woman's life and decided that "any governmental interference with [a woman's] right is subject to strict judicial scrutiny." It did recognize a state's right to "regulate the abortion procedure after the first trimester of pregnancy in ways necessary to promote women's health" and stated that "after the point of fetal viability—approximately 24 to 28 weeks—a state may, to protect the potential life of the fetus, prohibit abortions not necessary to preserve the woman's life or health."

In the following decade, the Court's decisions, though mixed, upheld the essence of Roe v. Wade. In Doe v. Bolton (1973), it invalidated provisions of a Georgia law restraining abortion through the use of expensive and unnecessary regulations. In Connecticut v. Menillo (1975), however, it "upheld the use of a Connecticut statute that prohibited the performance of abortion [but in this case it was] to prosecute a non-physician." In a 1976 case, Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, it invalidated a provision of a Missouri statute that "required a married woman to obtain the consent of her husband prior to an abortion." With regard to the use of public funds, however, in the 1980 case of Harris v. McRae, by "a vote of 5-4, the Court upheld the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions not necessary to preserve the woman's life" and held that "states that participate in the Medicaid program are not required by Title XIX of the Social Security Act to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal funds are available under the Hyde amendment." It also upheld several states' rulings against public funding for abortion.

The tide shifted somewhat in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992). While, by a vote of 5-4, the Court once again affirmed "the essential holding" of Roe v. Wade, it did uphold a provision of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act that required "physicians to provide patients with anti-abortion information ? to discourage women from obtaining abortions." More important is the fact that the four opposing views came from Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and White, who voted to "uphold the challenged (state) provisions and overturn Roe completely, stating that it was wrongly decided and the Constitution does not protect the right to choose." Only Blackman and Stevens voted to continue to "protect the right to choose as a fundamental right under Roe by subjecting state restrictions to strict scrutiny."3

Hyman Rodman noted that the Supreme Court had begun to "indicate a greater degree of willingness to accept state restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion," one of the major restrictions being a requirement for "parental involvement for minors' abortions."4 Another restriction is the inadequate provision of abortion services, creating a problem of access for some women. Susan Mezey et al describe an Illinois statute of this nature.5 A summary paper produced by NARAL-Pro-Choice America, "Roe v. Wade and the Right to Choose," stated that since the Supreme Court's 2002 ruling in Steinberg v. Carhart against Nebraska's ban on safe, common abortion procedures, legislators in that and other states have been "steadily passing legislation ? as groundwork for a Supreme Court case that could reverse Roe v. Wade; since 1995, states have enacted 383 anti-choice measures."6

Not all state and federal courts have been willing to accept anti-abortion measures. In response to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Nebraska by four physicians, headed by Dr. LeRoy Carhart, against U.S. Attorney General, Judge Richard G. Kopf, on September 8, 2004, struck down the federal abortion ban passed by Congress in October 2003. A Planned Parenthood news brief lauds his decision and notes that it was the third federal court ruling against the ban, described by another district court judge, Phyllis J. Hamilton, as "blatantly unconstitutional."7

The decisions of the 1990s came against a backdrop of continuing social protest. Anti-abortionists' acts against reproductive health (including abortion) clinics and their medical staff and patients became more frequent and violent. The Supreme Court generally supported states' efforts, by the use of buffer zones and other means, to protect the clinics and those working in or attending them, but the fact that this kind of violence is occurring indicates the view of hard opposition to abortion held by some Americans, especially those who are willing to commit a crime to prevent what they consider a crime-the abortion of an unborn child.

What has influenced the diversity in Americans' positions on abortion?

The impact of religion on abortion views boils down to the issue of whether the deliberate abortion of a fetus amounts to the killing of a human being. Since killing a human being is considered, in most cases, not only a religious sin, but also a secular crime, this issue evolves to that of when the fetus becomes a human being. While some sort of biological life obviously begins with conception, many do not consider the fertilized egg a human being, but they differ on when fetal viability and personhood are attained. The general consensus among those in favor of legal abortion is that fetal viability is not an issue until after the first trimester of pregnancy, since not until after that time can movement be felt within the womb and can the fetus have any chance to survive on its own. This notion has ancient historical roots. Aristotle (in Politics) wrote that abortion must be performed before the child has developed sensation and life; after that time, it is unlawful. Jeffrey L. Lenow suggests that medico-legal conflicts centered around personhood may arise with new technologies for fetal surgery and explores the "legal rights of unborn 'persons' ? with a particular emphasis on the role of fetal viability in determining those rights." Lenow goes on to recommend reforms to "the current method of resolving the critical question of when a fetus becomes viable."8 Clearly, for those who favor legal abortion under restricted circumstances, fetal viability is the crux of the matter, and resolution of this issue will not be an easy task.

Joyfulwoman · #2 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 11:55 AM

So, a heartbeat is not a sign of life??

ONEWHITEDUCK · #3 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 11:58 AM

COOKIE IS A MOCKINGBIRD...........she IGNORES those she CHOOSES NOT TO AGREE WITH

AND ONLY FIGHTS WITH PROXY FIGHTERS WHO ARE REALLY ON HER SIDE.

DON'T BE COOKIES FOOL

Joyfulwoman · #4 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 12:18 PM

You know what, onewhiteduck, you are right. She never addressed my specific question on self sustaining personhood. Totally ignored it, or missed it?? I am noticing that on these forums, people go off on tangents, and do not address specific points in a logical way. It kinda makes you just not even want to join a discussion, ya know. When I joined, I was really looking forward to some healthy debating, and interaction. ...but instead, I am cussed at and called names...I don't care, but I have other things I'd rather be doing...what is the Beatitude...Blessed are they who are persecuted.......

Cookie, maybe you just missed my posts. One final time, I will check back later to see if you have the courage to engage in a healthy discussion about an issue that effects the lives of women in such a dramatic way.

See I am for women's right to live...that means the born and unborn ones, too!!

wvpeach · #5 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 01:23 PM

joy

I must have missed your posts too. If you care to post a link to them I would be glad to answer you . that after all is what forums are all about group discussions.

nathanbforrest45 · #6 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

joy

I must have missed your posts too. If you care to post a link to them I would be glad to answer you . that after all is what forums are all about group discussions.

This I gotta see.

ONEWHITEDUCK · #7 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joyfulwoman

You know what, onewhiteduck, you are right. She never addressed my specific question on self sustaining personhood. Totally ignored it, or missed it?? I am noticing that on these forums, people go off on tangents, and do not address specific points in a logical way. It kinda makes you just not even want to join a discussion, ya know. When I joined, I was really looking forward to some healthy debating, and interaction. ...but instead, I am cussed at and called names...I don't care, but I have other things I'd rather be doing...what is the Beatitude...Blessed are they who are persecuted.......

Cookie, maybe you just missed my posts. One final time, I will check back later to see if you have the courage to engage in a healthy discussion about an issue that effects the lives of women in such a dramatic way.

See I am for women's right to live...that means the born and unborn ones, too!!

SEE THREAD...."WHAT TO DO IF YOU HAVE BEEN BANNED OR SEXUALLY HARRASSED BY GANGS OF HOMO PUSHING INTERNET CUNT TROLLS "

or something like that :-I

ehehehehehehehehe

Cookie Parker · #8 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joyfulwoman

So, a heartbeat is not a sign of life??

At what month does the heart beat?

Cookie Parker · #9 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joyfulwoman

You know what, onewhiteduck, you are right. She never addressed my specific question on self sustaining personhood. Totally ignored it, or missed it?? I am noticing that on these forums, people go off on tangents, and do not address specific points in a logical way. It kinda makes you just not even want to join a discussion, ya know. When I joined, I was really looking forward to some healthy debating, and interaction. ...but instead, I am cussed at and called names...I don't care, but I have other things I'd rather be doing...what is the Beatitude...Blessed are they who are persecuted.......

Cookie, maybe you just missed my posts. One final time, I will check back later to see if you have the courage to engage in a healthy discussion about an issue that effects the lives of women in such a dramatic way.

See I am for women's right to live...that means the born and unborn ones, too!!

Seems to me you are much too sensitive....I have answered it...at what stage is the heart beating..also, at what stage is the fetus capable of sustaining life on its own..if it is life you hold sacred..then it must be a life to be called one...what is the age of gestation where there is no need to hook up tubes and put in IVs and pump oxygen? You know, sustaining life...

And if what you say is indeed true, that you welcome the life of the woman, then why are you trying to make her decisions for her that affect ONLY her life..and NOT yours..you get to do what you want...?