Deconstructing Roe v. Wade

American Thinker ^ | January 13, 2017 | James Arlandson

[Kaslin]

One of the few benefits of deconstruction is that it takes down overwrought orthodoxy. Roe v. Wade has achieved a divine status, like a textual god. But it's possible to expose its feet of clay.

One prime example of deconstruction is French philosopher Jacques Derrida's takedown of Freud. Freud built up an edifice of real-life therapy from mere interpretations of the unconscious through dreams or slight gestures or utterances from his patients; his elaborate interpretations had material consequences and impacted how people saw themselves and lived. His far-reaching interpretations from such thin evidence impacted Western society, too.

This, among other reasons, is why Derrida chose the book title The Post Card. So little information is offered on them, so the recipients don't know how to interpret the scant handwritten text or the beautiful picture. It's possible to over-interpret the silence – not enough information.

In Roe v. Wade (1973) (available online), never have such far-reaching cultural – and deadly – conclusions been drawn from thin gruel or even silence.

Let's challenge the interpretations of Justice Blackmun, who wrote for the majority. But the challenges don't come mainly from a legal perspective (I leave that to Justice Rehnquist in the first two points). Instead, let's turn the tables by using the deconstruction "model" of interpreting so much from so little, which will show Roe to be primitive, obsolete, and defeasible.

[Ouchthatonehurt]

At one point in my life I read Derrida’s On Grammertology.
How I wish I could get that time back.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Roe: the prime, “mortal sin” example of “legislating from the bench”.

[\/\/ayne]

Good morning. My name is Norma McCorvey. I'm sorry to admit that I'm the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade.

The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn't happen the way I said it did, pure and simple. I lied! Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiable. Rape seemed to be the ticket. What made rape even worse? A gang rape! It all started out as a little lie, but my little lie grew and became more horrible with each telling.

Not only did I lie, but I was lied to. I did not come to the Supreme Court on behalf of a class of women. I wasn't pursuing any legal remedy for my unwanted pregnancy. I did not go to the federal courts for relief. I met with Sarah Weddington to find out how I could obtain an abortion. She and Linda Coffey said they didn't know where to get one. Sarah already had an abortion but she lied to me just like I lied to her! She knew where to get one, obviously, but I was of no use to her unless I was pregnant. Sarah and Linda were looking for somebody, anybody, to use to further their own agenda. I was their most willing dupe.

Since all these lies succeeded in dismantling every state's protection of the unborn, I think it's fair to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie.

- Testimony of Norma McCorvey, January 21, 1998 before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 105th Congress, 2nd Session.

[Robert A Cook PE]

If Roe vs Wade establishes a "woman's right to privacy" as a medical issue controlling (requiring even!) a state's INABILITY to control abortion, then MY right to privacy should make the government's complete control of health care and ALL medical issues under Obamacare is much more "illegal" and intrusive and restrictive!

[Tax-chick]

How I wish I could get that time back.

I watched "Flashdance" once.

[Auntie Mame]

All you have to do is read the Supreme Court decision. It’s ludicrous and a pathetic embarrassment to the highest court in the land.

[huldah1776]

She also gave birth.

[SkyPilot]

A liberals guide to the United States Constitution:

Unconstitutional, despite what it says in plain language.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Constitutional, through the "emanations of the penumbra" and a glittering right to "privacy" that is.....well.....in there is you read between the lines....to mean murdering infants.

[Neidermeyer]

All you have to do is read the Supreme Court decision. It’s ludicrous and a pathetic embarrassment to the highest court in the land.
***********
I read most of it sometime in the late 1970’s when I was in high school ,, even then if the scientific and medical arguments were appied honestly it would have failed. R v W doesn’t need to be overturned ,, keep the damned thing and just apply truth to the arguments made ,, make PP eat it .. each and every phrase of it.

[Jacquerie]

Agree. Use Roe’s inherent nonsense to overturn it.