Replies

The sad part is that the legislation, passed by "pro-life" Republicans, not only identifies the being involved as a human person, it says that you can kill them.

Which is worse than Roe. And completely contrary to the Constitution's requirements.

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Even Blackmun admitted, in the Roe majority opinion, that if the fetus is a person, OF COURSE they are protected by the explicit imperative provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."
-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973

In short, Blackmun *knew* the decision was utterly unconstitutional on the face of it, a modern day Dred Scott, and supported that. History should not be kind to him, and he should fall into historical oblivion, even as Roger B. Taney did...

the infowarrior

The sad part is that the legislation, passed by "pro-life" Republicans, not only identifies the being involved as a human person, it says that you can kill them.

That is true, but one step at a time, Roe V. Wade will be overturned. The camel's nose in the tent that permitted abortion on demand and at any time that we have today was the exception of rape, incest and mother's "health". The Doe vs. Bolton companion ruling to Roe defined health as virtually any reason where the woman might suffer anything from discomfort to financial problems, even being too young was found to qualify as health. Why this allowed what we have today is that it disallowed the rights of the developing human being. If he could be killed because he was inconvenient or because of how or when he was conceived, then there would be no rights whatsoever recognized for him. Abortion must be outlawed unless there is no other way to save the life of the mother and those cases should indeed be rare.