Posted on 12/02/2021 9:42:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The former deals with the latter by illustrating how a woman has a right to make choices about her body is limited to how she uses that body to affect others, thus a women has no more right to exterminate a living person from her body than she does from her car, esp. when they are both there due to her choices. What the Pro-abortorney could have argued was that the infant was not a person in the womb. But which raises the issue of when that "embryo" becomes a person if not at conception. If it criminal to destroy the egg of a bald eagle due to the value of it, then...
But "Thanks for nothing, George" and "God bless President Trump for KEEPING his campaign pledge to give us a pro-life justice in the Scalia mold"
Never mind facts and reality demonstrating otherwise. The only solid justices were the ones appointed by Presidents named "Bush". Funny how it works that way
Good post.
Roe v Wade was a crackpot decision by any reasonable standard.
In normal times the arguments would have only been persuasive to insane asylum residents.
Thank you.
I have been trying to understand how they could have made such an insane, ungodly decision and ran across Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Roe built upon this ruling.
U.S. Supreme Court
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Griswold v. Connecticut
No. 496
Argued March 29-30, 1965
Decided June 7, 1965
381 U.S. 479
Syllabus
Appellants, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife’s use. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute, as applied, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. An intermediate appellate court and the State’s highest court affirmed the judgment.
Held:
1. Appellants have standing to assert the constitutional rights of the married people. Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U. S. 44, distinguished. P. 381 U. S. 481.
2. The Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Pp. 381 U. S. 481-486.
151 Conn. 544, 200 A.2d 479, reversed.
Page 381 U. S. 480
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.